Dublin City Council
July 16, 2024

MEMORANDUM OF RESPONSE TO CEQA ADDEND UM AND

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS COMMENTS
DATE: June 26, 2024
PREPARED BY: Crystal De Castro, Senior Planner, City of Dublin Neda Zayer, Assistant Community Development Director, City of Dublin Pratyush Bhatia, Transportation & Operations Manager, City of Dublin Shanna Guiler, AICP Associate/Environmental Planner, LSA Associates Theresa Wallace, AICP Principal/Environmental Planner, LSA Associates Damian Stefanakis, T.E., Kittleson & Associates
SUBJECT: Dublin 580 Fallon Project CEQA Addendum and Transportation Impact Analysis - Response to Comments
This memorandum responds to public comments on the Dublin 580 Project. The City received two comment letters addressed to the Planning Commission for the June 11, 2024 Planning Commission hearing. One letter was on behalf of the Kingswood Owners Association (KOA) and another letter was from a KOA Board Member.

An Initial Study, was prepared to support the City’s finding that the proposed project qualifies for an Addendum to the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (Eastern Extended Planning Area) and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Eastern Dublin EIR),1 the Supplemental EIR (2002 SEIR)2 to the Eastern Dublin EIR prepared for the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation project, and the Supplemental EIR for the Fallon Village Project (Fallon Village SEIR),3 collectively referred to as the “EDSP EIRs” per Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. In accordance with Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an addendum need not be circulated for public review. Commission This memorandum focuses on the transportation-related comments from both letters as well as comments on the Addendum. Comments that do not directly relate to the analysis in the Initial Study or the Transportation Impact Analysis (i.e., are outside the scope of this document) or that do not include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and/or expert opinion supported by facts are not given specific responses.

RESPONSES TO LETTER FROM HOLDER LAW GROUP DATED JUNE 4, 2024 A. Absent Adequate Environmental Review, the Project’s Residential Density and Commercial Intensity Should Not be Increased Over the Character and Amount of Development Described and Analyzed in the EDSP EIRs.

The comment, which begins on page 2 of the comment letter, asserts that the proposed project improperly increases the density of the proposed residential and commercial development and that

1 Dublin, City of. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 91103064, Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. December. 2 Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. March. 3 Dublin, City of. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November.

Attachment 13
1578

these substantial increases in residential density and total commercial use area have the potential to cause increased traffic and may also increase traffic safety risks. The commenter further suggests that the City lacks substantial evidence to support the CEQA Addendum and that additional supplemental review, specifically a stand-alone EIR, is required. This assertion is based on the commenter’s opinion that the proposed project involves more than “minor” changes to existing Specific Plan designations and that evaluation of several technical topics is inadequate. Responses to the specific technical comments provided in this letter are provided below.

As stated on page 7 and shown in Table C of the Initial Study, the proposed project would consist of the development of 238 residential townhome units. The density and intensity of the proposed residential development is consistent with the General Plan Medium High (MH) Density Residential land use designation and consistent with the density range of 14.1 – 25.0 dwelling units per acre specified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed project does not represent an increase in residential density.

As stated on page 9 of the Initial Study, as shown in Table B, the project would include a 0.6 floor area ratio (FAR) for the GC/CO portion of the project site, which is consistent with the FAR allowed in the Fallon Village PD-1 and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed project does not represent an increase in commercial density.

However, the 0.6 FAR does represent an increase from the 0.28 FAR assumed under the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. The PD-GC/CO zoning allows for a range of community and regional serving retail, service and office use, including a compatible mixture of these uses. Based on the 0.6 FAR, a potential development project could build up to 3,299,670 square feet of general commercial/campus office development compared to the 1,522,161 square feet of development anticipated in the EDSP and evaluated in the EDSP EIRs. Although a higher FAR was analyzed, the regulations propose a mix of limited light manufacturing, hotel, retail, and office uses for the GC/CO parcels that is compatible with the surrounding area. This mix of uses constitutes the proposed project, as analyzed in the Initial Study. As demonstrated in the environmental analyses included in the Initial Study, the GC/CO development falls within the anticipated development intensity (e.g., traffic, air emissions) anticipated in the EDSP EIRs and would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant effect on the environment than was already identified in the EDSP EIRs.

The project site has been the subject of three prior EIRs, which have assessed the environmental impacts of proposed development on the site and subsequent major changes to such development density. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if the CEQA standards for supplemental review were triggered by the proposed project including whether the proposed project could have a new or substantially more severe significant effect on the environment than was already identified in the EDSP EIRs. Since an EIR had already been prepared, this determination is subject to the substantial evidence test, not the fair argument test. Based on the evaluation of all environmental issue topics in the Initial Study, the City determined that, in light of the whole record and based on substantial evidence, the proposed project was considered within the scope of the evaluation within the EDSP EIRs, no new impacts were identified, no new mitigation measures are required and, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the proposed project would not require further review under CEQA.

In addition, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 the City has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that is based on the mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, as well as any modifications required for the proposed project. The MMRP identifies each 1579

required mitigation measure, the schedule or timing for implementation, and the parties responsible for implementing and monitoring the required action. The MMRP is designed to ensure implementation of the relevant mitigation measures from the EDSP EIRs, identified in the Initial Study and would be required as part of the project approval. The project applicant would be required to implement the MMRP as a condition of project approval.

It should be noted that the existence of public controversy over the environmental effects of a project does not in and of itself require the preparation of an EIR if there is no substantial evidence before the City that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Substantial evidence must consist of facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. Specific points raised by the commenter that relate to the adequacy of the Initial Study are responded to below. Based on a review of all of the comments received, the City has determined that, consistent with the conclusions in the CEQA Addendum and accompanying Initial Study, there is no substantial evidence that with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures and required regulatory measures, the standards for preparation of a subsequent EIR are triggered.

B. Because the Project Will Potentially Cause Unanalyzed and Unmitigated Significant Environmental Impacts, an EIR is Required; the Proposed Addendum is Improper.

The comment asserts that the proposed project improperly relied on outdated and incomplete analyses as presented in the EDSP EIRs and failed to accurately assess the following impacts: impacts to public open space and scenic vistas; cumulative traffic impacts; traffic safety hazards created by substantially increasing the number of residences dependent upon small streets for exclusive ingress and egress routes; and unanalyzed climate change impacts. Responses to these specific comments are provided below.

1. The Project, as Designed, Has the Potential to Cause Significant but Unmitigated Aesthetic Impacts The comment asserts that the proposed development on Parcel 7 would completely obstruct scenic views from Jordan Ranch Square, Pandora Way, and adjacent neighborhood vantage points and that the proposed project is inconsistent with the EDSP requirement to “site buildings on the downslope side of streets, where feasible, so the main mass of the building is below street level, allowing views over roofs from the street.” Further, the comment asserts that the City assumes, without substantiation, that the mitigation measures referenced in the Initial Study will be effectively implemented. The comment also states that the Initial Study inadequately addresses the potential visual impacts resulting from the additional commercial square footage proposed.

As described in the Initial Study, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to standardized tract development, obscuring distinctive natural features, alteration of hillsides, ridges, and watercourses, alteration of Dublin’s visual identity as a freestanding city, scenic vistas, and scenic routes. All of these impacts were determined to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR.

In compliance with Mitigation Measure 3.8/5.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the City has prepared and adopted the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards which contains five overall scenic corridor implementing policies, specific scenic corridor zone policies, and development standards for 6 zones and implementation procedures that promote the preservation of scenic vistas from the three transportation corridors – Tassajara Road, Interstate 580 (I-580) and Fallon Road. Views from Jordan Ranch Square, Pandora Way, and adjacent neighborhood vantages are not identified in the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards or the EDSP EIRs as significant vistas or designated scenic routes. As stated in the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards, “while the applicant 1580

should generally comply with these standards, the City may allow some flexibility with meeting these standards only if the applicant demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Planning Department, compliance with the overall intent of the policies and standards.” With regard to the commenter’s assertion that the proposed project is inconsistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policy to “site buildings on the downslope side of streets, where feasible, so the main mass of the building is below street level, allowing views over roofs from the street,” as stated, this policy is to be implemented, “where feasible.” The project applicant has determined that due to the site topography, it is infeasible to place the residential buildings downslope due to inadequate access and connectivity between the proposed project and the adjacent neighborhood to the north.

The proposed project would grade the site to provide a level building pad for the proposed residential development at the same elevation as the adjacent neighborhood.

The general type and massing of buildings associated with the proposed project would not be significantly different than those analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. Due to the project’s location in the southern portion of the Fallon Village planning area, proposed buildings would not obstruct views of the main scenic ridgeline, as designated in the Eastern Dublin EIR, which borders the larger Eastern Dublin planning area to the north and east. As part of the proposed project, the areas designated for Visually Sensitive Ridgelands – Restricted Development would be preserved as Natural Community Park, consistent with the requirements of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Further, the proposed residential development on Parcel 7 has been designed with breaks between the buildings to preserve some view locations from the north looking south over the ridge where the topography slopes down.

In accordance with Mitigation Measure 3.8/5.0 development will be permitted in the foreground hills and ridgelands, if a backdrop of natural ridgelines remains visible when viewed from designated scenic routes and appropriate measures are taken to minimize visual impacts. These measures are specified in the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards and the other mitigation measures outlined in the EDSP EIRs and enforced through the City’s site-specific design review process. As part of the Stage 2 Development Plan, the project applicant has provided architectural and landscape guidelines for the residential portion of the proposed project, based on the Design Guidelines and Master Neighborhood Landscaping Plan in the Stage 1 Development Plan and aimed at promoting well designed and attractive development. The architectural and landscape guidelines provide the framework for future Site Development Review Permits, which will consider the project’s consistency with City of Dublin design standards, property development regulations and performance standards related to aesthetics. The project applicant will be required to submit similar guidelines and undergo site-specific design review for future development of the GC/CO parcels, in accordance with the mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, to ensure the project is consistent with City of Dublin design standards, property development regulations and performance standards related to aesthetics and to lessen the severity of visual changes resulting from the proposed project.

As described above, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 the City has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that is based on the mitigation measures identified in the 2022 SEIR, and identifies which measures are applicable to the proposed project. The MMRP identifies each required mitigation measure, the schedule or timing for implementation, and the parties responsible for implementing and monitoring the required action. The MMRP is designed to ensure implementation of the applicable mitigation measures and would be required as part of the project approval. The project applicant would be required to implement the MMRP as a condition of project approval, including those relevant mitigation measures related to visual resources. 1581

Therefore, as stated in the Initial Study, with adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to aesthetic resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met.

2. The Project Will Exacerbate Neighborhood Traffic Congestion.

The comment asserts that the existing traffic and safety problems on the roads surrounding Jordan Ranch Square would be exacerbated by the proposed development within Parcel 7, that the analysis does not consider the increase in local traffic associated with recent and pending neighborhood development projects, and that the impact analysis relies on the mix of uses for the GC/CO parcels as proposed (e.g., 2,888,400 square feet of advanced manufacturing, a 314-room hotel, 100,000 square feet of retail and 100,000 square feet of office).

In accordance with Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Initial Study checklist evaluates whether the proposed project is within the scope of the project covered by the EDSP EIRs, by assessing whether the proposed project would result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. An analysis was prepared comparing the trip generation for the Dublin Fallon 580 property studied as part of the Fallon Village SEIR and the estimated trip generation for the same property based on the proposed project. As described on page 162 of the Initial Study and in the Dublin Fallon 580 Trip Generation Comparison Technical Memorandum (Appendix I in the Initial Study), the proposed project would generate 22,932 fewer daily vehicle trips compared to the assumptions from the Fallon Village SEIR, despite the increase in FAR for the GC/CO parcels. Therefore, the proposed project is within the scope of the EDSP EIRs and no new transportation impacts that were not previously disclosed would be anticipated based on daily trip generation for the proposed project.

As required by the City of Dublin Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines, a local transportation analysis (LTA) was prepared to evaluate potential impacts on the circulation network focusing primarily on local access and circulation in proximity to a project site. The LTA includes an analysis of existing, near-term, and near-term plus project, cumulative and cumulative plus project conditions. Per the TIA Guidelines, this analysis is required for conditions of approval and is outside the CEQA review process.

The LTA prepared by Kittelson & Associates addressed all potential traffic impacts on the circulation network and proposed improvements. The LTA has concluded that the project will not greatly exacerbate neighborhood traffic congestion based on the levels of service and delay at the two study intersections identified by the commenter.

3. The Project Will Cause Unanalyzed and Unmitigated Traffic Safety Impacts.

The comment asserts that the Initial Study inadequately addressed the potential for the proposed project to create safety hazards associated with increased residential development near an elementary school that is already experiencing high levels of peak hour traffic.

As described above and in the Initial Study, the proposed project would include development of 238 residential units, consistent with the General Plan Medium High (MH) Density Residential land use designation and consistent with the density range of 14.1 – 25.0 dwelling units per acre specified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed project does not represent an increase in residential density.
1582

Primary access into the residential neighborhoods would be via Pandora Way within the Jordan Ranch development and an east/west private street off of Croak Road. The design, construction, and maintenance of project site access locations as well as internal roadways within the project site would be required to be in compliance with the City’s Municipal Code. Compliance with the City’s Municipal Code would ensure that roadways would be designed appropriately; therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature.

As described above, an analysis was prepared comparing the trip generation for the Dublin Fallon 580 property studied as part of the Fallon Village SEIR and the estimated trip generation for the same property based on the proposed project. As described on page 162 of the Initial Study and in the Dublin Fallon 580 Trip Generation Comparison Technical Memorandum (Appendix I in the Initial Study), the proposed project would generate 22,932 fewer daily vehicle trips compared to the assumptions from the Fallon Village SEIR, despite the increase in FAR for the GC/CO parcels.

Therefore, the level of vehicle trips associated with the proposed project would be within the scope of the project covered by the EDSP EIRs and would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

The commenter asserts that there is already heavy pedestrian and vehicle traffic on neighborhood streets due to school drop off and pick up at Cottonwood Creek Elementary School. The City acknowledges this condition during school pick up and drop off; however, the proposed project would not significantly exacerbate this existing condition. As required by the City of Dublin Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines, a local transportation analysis (LTA) was prepared to evaluate potential impacts on the circulation network focusing primarily on local access and circulation in proximity to a project site. The LTA includes an analysis of existing, near-term, and near-term plus project, cumulative and cumulative plus project conditions. In addition, as discussed at the Planning Commission hearing on June 11, 2024, alternative routes would be provided via Croak Road to alleviate vehicle traffic through the adjacent residential neighborhood. Pedestrian walkways and bike paths would connect the proposed project to the adjacent Jordan Ranch project and a landscaped green corridor with an 8-foot multi-use walkway is proposed along the northwest edge of Parcel 7, providing pedestrian and bicycle routes to/from the proposed project.

Currently, the intersection of Central Parkway & Panorama/ Pino Grande Road (Intersection #15 in the LTA) is an unsignalized all-way stop. The LOS & delay levels did not trigger a need to change the control type and signalize this location under any of the analyzed scenarios. Based on the near term plus project and cumulative plus project volumes expected at this location, the signal warrant analysis did not indicate a signal is warranted at this location. However, as traffic patterns change and more development is added, the City will periodically conduct new counts and reassess the control and safety at this location.

4. The I/S Improperly Omits Analysis of the Project’s Potential Contribution to Climate Change Impacts.

The comment asserts that the City should analyze the proposed project’s consistency with the City’s adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2030 and otherwise meaningfully assess the proposed project’s climate change impacts. If the project is not consistent with CAP 2030, then subsequent analysis of the project’s contribution to climate change impacts is required.

As described on page 97 of the Initial Study, because the EDSP EIRs have been certified, the determination of whether greenhouse gasses and climate change need to be analyzed for this project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163). Greenhouse gasses and climate change are not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes “new information of substantial 1583

importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EDSP EIRs were certified as complete” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3)).

Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts were not analyzed in the EDSP EIRs; however, these impacts are not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time these previous EIRs were certified. The issue of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions was widely known prior to the certification of these EIRs. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.

Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gasses on climate change was known at the time of the certification of the EDSP EIRs. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of the project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA.

5. The Project’s Contributions to Cumulative Impacts Have Not Been Adequately Analyzed.

The comment asserts that the Initial Study failed to accurately analyze the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project. The comment further states that the City has approved approximately 46 General Plan Amendments (GPAs), which allow for increased density/intensity than that considered in the EDSP EIR or subsequent EIRs. Therefore, the City should evaluate the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts in the context of other development projects within the EDSP area that are more intensive than anticipated in the EDSP EIRs.

As described above, the Initial Study checklist evaluates whether the proposed project is within the scope of the project covered by the EDSP EIRs, by assessing whether the proposed project would result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

As demonstrated by the analysis provided in the Initial Study, the proposed project’s impacts would be individually limited and not cumulatively considerable. Potentially significant impacts that can be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs include the topics of aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and noise. These impacts would primarily be related to construction-period activities, would be temporary in nature, and would not substantially contribute to any potential cumulative impacts associated with these topics.

For the topics of agricultural and forestry resources, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire, the project would have no impacts or less-than-significant impacts, and therefore, the project would not substantially contribute to any potential cumulative impacts for these topics. All environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs.

Implementation of these measures would ensure that the impacts of the project would be below established thresholds of significance and that these impacts would not combine with the impacts of other cumulative projects to result in a cumulatively considerable impact on the environment as a result of project development. Other projects within the EDSP area have undergone or will undergo a similar level of environmental review and will be required to comply with existing regulation 1584

requirements and the mitigation measures established in the EDSP EIRs to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, as concluded in the Initial Study, implementation of the proposed project, with compliance with regulatory requirements and required mitigation measures, 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.

C. Project Design Changes Would Avoid or Minimize Unanalyzed Potentially Significant Impacts.

This comment provides suggested design changes to, in the opinion of the commenter, avoid or minimize the potentially significant impacts described herein. This comment is noted. As part of the City’s approval process, the City Council will consider the suggestions provided by the commenter. No further response is required.

D. KOA Requests Notice Concerning Further Environmental Review and Public Hearings Concerning the Project.

This comment requests the City to provide the commenter with all CEQA documentation completed for the proposed project and all public meetings or hearings concerning the proposed project. This comment does not relate to the adequacy or content of the CEQA document; therefore, no response is required.

RESPONSES TO LETTER FROM SACHIN BHANDARI
The comment letter from Sachin Bhandari asserts that the City of Dublin has released an Initial Study and LTA that inadequately avoid/mitigate the impacts of the Dublin Fallon 580 Project, particularly at the intersection of Pino Grande and Central Parkway.

The LTA prepared for the project evaluated the Level of Service (LOS) conditions at the intersections surrounding the project site and analyzed existing, near-term, near-term plus project, cumulative and cumulative plus project conditions. The analysis conducted did not result in any of the intersections surrounding the project site, including at the intersection of Pino Grande and Central Parkway, operating below a LOS C. The majority of the intersections remain at LOS B. The City of Dublin acceptable LOS threshold is D or better.

The model used does not predict pedestrian traffic increases in the future cumulative condition of the area, but additional pedestrians are not expected to appreciably change the LOS/delay from B to exceed the City standard of LOS D.

As discussed at the Planning Commission hearing on June 11, 2024, alternative routes would be provided to Fallon Road even before Dublin Boulevard Extension is constructed, which could further alleviate traffic conditions at Central Parkway & Panorama/ Pino Grande Road (Intersection #15 in the LTA) during the near term plus project scenario.

A new connection from Croak Road to the future planned Dublin Boulevard Extension will be constructed and will further disperse both Dublin East Ranch and full buildout of GH PacVest traffic to alternative routes, thus contributing to the same or improved LOS at Central Parkway & Panorama/ Pino Grande Road (Intersection #15 in the LTA).

Also, as mentioned above, pedestrian walkways and bike paths would connect the proposed project to the adjacent Jordan Ranch project and a landscaped green corridor with an 8-foot multi-use 1585

walkway is proposed along the northwest edge of Parcel 7, providing pedestrian and bicycle routes to/from the proposed project.

Responses to specific comments are provided below:

The extension of Central Parkway due to the Croak Rd Development will in turn make doing a Uturn where Central ends impractical with ongoing traffic coming the other way. The Camino Loop side traffic from Kingswood would instead route around Jordan Ranch Square Park. Twain Harte does not allow for left turns onto Central.

Response: Traffic will have the option to make a U-turn at the All-Way Stop control intersection at Central/Croak (unless the City decides to restrict this movement) or turn right onto Croak Road that connects to Fallon Road on the south. Residents will also be able to turn left onto Central Parkway at Pino Grande Road.

This assessment also assumes no increased vehicular flow west bound on Central Parkway at the intersection in question, despite 500+ residential units coming online whose major point of access is Central Parkway to Fallon Rd / 580 is Central Parkway. Implausibly, none of these people would use Central Parkway to access their homes or Cottonwood Creek.

Response: Central Pkwy would not be the only route that is available under near-term conditions. The model assumes a portion of the 500+ residential units would use Central Parkway in the near-term as expected. However, traffic from the East Ranch development would be able to use alternate routes such as Croak Road to Fallon Road and the northern portion of the development would also use Positano Parkway to Fallon.

The other major issue that the traffic report doesn’t address is pedestrian traffic physically around the Jordan Ranch Park.

Response: The development of the Jordan Ranch Park will be installing sidewalks along the frontages of Twain Harte Road and Pino Grande Road. This will improve pedestrian circulation in the area.

Students and parents walking to Cottonwood Creek elementary school from the proposed Project would not need to cross Pino Grande Road. They would be able to use the existing sidewalks on the west side of Pino Grande Road and south side of Central Parkway to access the school.

The letter also referenced a preference for Parcel 7 connecting directly with Dubin Boulevard extension or Croak Road.

Response: This was considered by the applicant but was infeasible due to the constraints of the hill/canyon topography around Parcel 7.

In addition, the comment letter asserts that the proposed project would obstruct scenic views from Jordan Ranch Park. Please see response in Section B.1. above related to visual impacts associated with the proposed project.

The comment letter also raises issues related to the City’s noticing and review process. This comment is noted but does not relate to the adequacy or content of the CEQA document. No further response is required.
1586
425 Market Street
Suite 2900
San Francisco, CA 94105
415.227.0900 Phone
415.227.0770 Fax
BN 83214200v2
415.227.3508 Direct June 20, 2024 [email protected] Crystal De Castro, Senior Planner
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Dublin Fallon 580 Project (PLPA-2023-00033) EIR Addendum Dear Crystal:

As you know, Buchalter, a Professional Corporation, represents GH PacVest, Inc. (“GHPV”) with respect to the land use approvals for its proposed Dublin Fallon 580 Project (the “Project”). The Project is located in the eastern portion of the City of Dublin at Fallon Road and Interstate 580 on the former Anderson and Chen properties within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area.

First, I wanted to extend my appreciation on behalf of our client for the thorough review the City conducted of the Project applications over the past several years. Secondly, I wanted to take this opportunity to generally address the comments from Mr. Holder that he submitted to the Dublin Planning Commission on June 4, 2024 on behalf of the Kingswood Owners Association (“KOA”).

If I understand the gist of Mr. Holder’s June 4, 2024 comments that he submitted on behalf of his client, he is effectively directing the City to not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code Section 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. 15000 et seq.) (“CEQA”), and just prepare another environmental impact report (“EIR”) even though the minor changes in the Project compared to the prior discretionary approvals would not result in new significant impacts or in a substantial increase in the severity of the impacts previously evaluated in the City’s prior 3 EIRs that addressed this Project. That is exactly what CEQA says not to do.

As the Planning Commission noted at its June 11, 2024 hearing, and as the City’s Addendum stated, the City of Dublin (“City”) prepared and certified three environmental impact reports (“EIRs”) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) since 1993.

Attachment 14
1587
Crystal De Castro, Senior Planner
June 20, 2024

BN 83214200v2
Staff prepared a very thorough presentation for the Planning Commission at its June 11, 2024 Planning Commission hearing. Staff’s presentation was very comprehensive in explaining the history of the Project, walking through all of the prior environmental review that the City has conducted for this area since the early 1990s, and addressing comments from the public about purported traffic impacts even though the impacts were previously addressed other City EIRs.

The EIRs included the East Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan EIR, the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR, and the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (collectively, the “East Dublin Specific Plan EIRs” or the “EDSP EIRs”).

Because the prior EIRs still applied to the Project, the City prepared an Addendum to document whether or not the proposed Project would require subsequent environmental review.

An addendum is appropriate when a project has some changes but the changes would not result in a new significant impact or in a substantial increase in the severity of the impacts previously evaluated in the EIR.

CEQA requires a lead agency prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if only some changes or additions are necessary, but no conditions exist which would require a subsequent EIR. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21166; 14 Cal. Code Regs. (the “CEQA Guidelines”), § 15164(a).) A lead agency must prepare a subsequent EIR only after it “determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record,” that either:
(1) the project proposes substantial changes “which will require major revisions of the previous EIR” due to the involvement of new significant 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 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 shows that the project will have a significant effect not discussed in the previous EIR, previously examined significant effects will be substantially more severe, or mitigation measures are available which would reduce one or more significant effects.
(CEQA Guidelines, § 15162(a).)
Thus, absent any of the above enumerated conditions, CEQA bars a lead agency1 from preparing a subsequent EIR. Instead, the lead agency must prepare an addendum to the previously certified EIR. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21166; CEQA Guidelines, § 15164(a).) That is what 1 Section 15162(a) uses the language “no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines” any of the above enumerated events have occurred. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15162(a) (emphasis added).) 1588
Crystal De Castro, Senior Planner
June 20, 2024

BN 83214200v2
the City did here just as it has done for other projects in the EDSP area.

There is no substantial evidence requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR.

As explained above, in order to require preparation of a subsequent EIR, CEQA Guidelines 15162 requires that there be substantial evidence demonstrating that the Project proposes substantial changes to the prior approved Project and/or its circumstances, or that new information has arisen indicating that the project would cause new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the impacts previously identified in the prior EIRs. Substantial evidence is defined as “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15384(a).) “Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion” is expressly excluded from substantial evidence. (Id.) Substantial evidence includes “facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.” (Id., § 15384(b).)
KOA makes several unsubstantiated or erroneous claims that the Project should be evaluated in its own new EIR – the fourth EIR- for this area, because according to the commenter: (1) the Project allegedly exceeds the intensity of development evaluated in the prior EIRs; and (2) the EIR Addendum relies on outdated analyses presented in the prior EIRs. The commenter seems focused on a claim that the City failed to assess alleged impacts to open space and scenic vistas, traffic impacts, and climate change impacts. For the reasons detailed below, KOA’s unsubstantiated claims do not warrant preparation of a subsequent EIR. KOA’s letter raise these issues without any evidence and KOA failed to meet its burden of proof required under CEQA.

The Project intensity is consistent with the density previously evaluated in the EIRs.

In its letter, KOA erroneously claims that the Project intensity exceeds the intensity that the City reviewed in the prior EIR. KOA only claims that the Project intensity exceeds that which was previously proposed. However, this ignores the fact that the prior EIRs evaluated a range in density that could develop within the EDSP. First, KOA claims that the Project increases commercial development by increasing the overall floor area ratio (“FAR”) for that portion of development. Overall, the Project proposes 3,299,670 square feet of commercial uses across 126.25 acres at a density of 0.6 FAR. (EIR Addendum, p. 7.) This is consistent with the

0.8 FAR general commercial density evaluated in the Fallon Village EIR. (Fallon Village Initial Study, p. 23.) On 126.25 acres, a commercial development at the maximum 0.8 FAR would provide 4,404,787 square feet of commercial space. Thus, the approximately 3.3 million square feet of commercial uses is within the density range that the City evaluated in the EDSP EIRs and there are no new impacts.
1589
Crystal De Castro, Senior Planner
June 20, 2024

BN 83214200v2
KOA additionally wrongly claims that the Project proposes an increase in residential density. The Project proposes 238 medium-high density residential units at a density of 17.4 units per acre. (EIR Addendum, p. 7.) However, this is the same as the density of the previously approved version of the project, which proposed 238 units. Regardless, the prior EIRs evaluated a residential density of up to 25 units per acre, which would yield a maximum 342 units. Again, the Project is within the density evaluated in prior environmental documents and there are no new significant or substantially greater impacts warranting further CEQA review.

The Project proposes residential and commercial densities within the ranges evaluated in the prior EIRs. KOA does not recognize in its letter that the Project is within the scope of the General Plan and zoning density ranges, but instead focuses on the differences between this project and the prior iteration of the Project, both of which were consistent with the scope of environmental review that the City previously conducted. Because the Project fits within the density range evaluated in the EIRs, the Project proposes no changes which would require preparation of a subsequent EIR under Section 15162. KOA does not provide any substantial evidence which would require preparation of a subsequent EIR to the contrary.

The EIR Addendum adequately analyzes and mitigates for potential impacts to scenic resources.

KOA makes several assertions, including that the EIR Addendum failed to adequately analyze impacts to open space and scenic vistas, traffic, and climate change. With respect to scenic vistas, KOA erroneously claims that the Project would “completely obstruct” scenic views and that proposed mitigation measures improperly “defer” analysis and mitigation. Here, however, KOA misrepresents CEQA. The EIR Addendum provides that several mitigation measures, which include subjecting the Project to design review, requirements for sensitive grading, sensitive engineering design, revegetation, are sufficient to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level. (EIR Addendum, p. 22.)
When “a public agency has evaluated the potentially significant impacts of a project and has identified measures that will mitigate those impacts, the agency does not have to commit to any particular mitigation measure in the EIR, as long as it commits to mitigating the significant impacts of the project.” (North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin Mun. Water Dist. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 614, 629.) The “details of exactly how mitigation will be achieved under the identified measures can be deferred pending completion of a future study.” (Id.) “Where future action to carry a project forward is contingent on devising means to satisfy such criteria, the agency should be able to rely on its commitment as evidence that significant impacts will in fact be mitigated.” (Id.)
In North Coast, the Court of Appeal upheld as valid a mitigation measure requiring the preparation and implementation of a future landscaping plan as sufficient for reducing the visual 1590
Crystal De Castro, Senior Planner
June 20, 2024

BN 83214200v2
and scenic impacts of a proposed water tank. (Id. at p. 630.) The court cited to other cases which uphold mitigation measures that are imposed at the design stage. (Id. (citing Clover Valley Foundation v. City of Rocklin (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 200, 244; Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099).) Here, as in North Coast, the City did not improperly defer mitigation. The EIRs and the EIR Addendum specify exactly how future actions (e.g. approval of design review, revegetation plan, etc.) will mitigate impacts to scenic resources. Thus, the City here did not improperly defer mitigation of impacts to scenic resources.

The prior EIRs adequately evaluated the Project’s transportation impacts.

KOA made various claims that the EIR Addendum failed to study traffic impacts caused by the commercial use increase in square footage as well as traffic safety impacts allegedly caused by the proposed residential uses. Again, as explained above, the Project is consistent with the densities evaluated in the prior EIRs. Because the proposed densities are consistent with the densities previously reviewed, the Project does not constitute a change that would require preparation of a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. Thus, the EIR Addendum is the appropriate CEQA document pursuant to Section 15162(a).

KOA misrepresents its claim that the state’s new vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) standard constitutes changed conditions. The VMT standard for transportation impacts must only be applied prospectively. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.3(c).) New or updated CEQA Guidelines (e.g. the new VMT standard) may only be applied to subsequent projects sent out for public review. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15007(c).) Here, because the Project is the implementation of the prior approved EDSP and Stage 1 PD zoning, the EIR Addendum is the appropriate CEQA document to evaluate the implementation of the EDSP as specifically applied to the Dublin 580 Project. Thus,
2 the VMT transportation standard does not apply to the Project. The City may rely on the transportation standard applicable to the prior EIRs for its evaluation of the transportation impacts resulting from the proposed Project. 2 CEQA Guidelines section 15164(c).
1591
Crystal De Castro, Senior Planner
June 20, 2024

BN 83214200v2
We appreciate your consideration of our comments and look forward to the City Council’s deliberations concerning the Project at its upcoming City Council meeting in July.

Sincerely,

BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation
Alicia Guerra
AG:nj
cc: John Bakker
Hazel Weatherford
Neda Zayer
Wooi-See Ferris
Jason Laub
1592
5960 Inglewood Dr., Suite 201, Pleasanton, CA 94588 | Office: 925.337.2859 July 10, 2024
Dublin City Council
RE: Fallon 580 Project
Dear Members of the Dublin City Council,
On behalf of Innovation Tri-Valley Leadership Group (ITV), we are pleased to write a letter of support for the Fallon 580 Project, a model of vibrant placemaking in action.

ITV is an interconnected cross-sector network of business and community leaders working to advance the business climate and quality of life in the Tri-Valley. Our collaboration is attracting new businesses, helping existing businesses expand, attracting workforce, and branding the TriValley as a region of innovation to help to create a better world. To that end, ITV spearheaded the creation of the Tri-Valley 2040 Vision Plan to provide touchstones for our region’s current and future planning efforts.

We are writing to express our enthusiastic support for the Fallon 580 project and to commend the City Council for its vision and proactive approach to economic development in Eastern Dublin. It is truly exciting to see this vision coming to fruition. At its eventual completion, the Fallon 580 project holds immense promise for our community, particularly as a catalyst in fostering opportunities for Life Sciences, Biotech, Advanced Manufacturing, and other innovative businesses. These sectors represent the forefront of technology and industry, offering not only economic growth but also the potential for significant advancements in research and development. This initiative not only enhances our local economy but also positions Dublin as a hub for cutting-edge industries, attracting top talent and investment to our area.

Implementation of the proposed project amends the land use designation on approximately

42.6-acres from Open Space (OS) to Parks/Public Recreation (P/PR) while accommodating residential, commercial/office, park, and open space uses. A total of much needed 238 residential units and up to 3,299,670-square feet of commercial/office uses is proposed on approximately 126.3-acres designated as General Commercial/Campus Office (GC/CO), approximately 49.8-acres of parkland is designated as P/PR, and approximately 2.3-acres of OS is designated in the General Plan and EDSP. Consistent with the PD-GC/CO zoning, these parcels Attachment 15
1593
5960 Inglewood Dr., Suite 201, Pleasanton, CA 94588 | Office: 925.337.2859 could accommodate a range of community and regional serving retail, service and office use, including a compatible mixture of these uses. Future development of these parcels would be consistent with the City’s development standards, including minimum lot area, required setbacks, landscape buffers and a maximum height limit of 45 feet. In addition, this project fulfills a critical need of enhancing the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Road while building an essential component of the highly anticipated Dublin Boulevard extension that gets us one step closer to the long-awaited vision of creating an additional arterial connection with Livermore.

The Fallon 580 project aligns perfectly with the Tri-Valley’s Vision 2040 Plan that was adopted by ITV by fulfilling objectives related to attracting world class talent, vibrant place-making opportunities, enhancing sustainability and green development, critical connections, and providing more housing for all. This project is also consistent with the City Council's own stated priorities of bolstering economic development in Eastern Dublin and extending Dublin Boulevard.

We believe this project will not only strengthen our economic base but also create a ripple effect of positive outcomes, from job creation to increased revenues that can support essential city services and infrastructure improvements. Furthermore, the commitment to sustainable development ensures that Dublin continues to grow responsibly, maintaining our high quality of life for current and future residents alike.

In closing, we urge the City Council to support the recommendation of the City’s Planning Commission and Staff to maintain its steadfast support for the Fallon 580 project. By doing so, we can seize the exciting opportunities ahead and solidify Dublin's reputation as a dynamic and forward-thinking community. Thank you for your considering the perspectives of our ITV members and for our continued partnership.

Sincerely,
Katie Marcel Tim Sbranti
CEO, Innovation Tri-Valley Director of Strategic Initiatives Innovation Tri-Valley
1594

DAVID HAUBERT

SUPERVISOR, FIRST DISTRICT
July 10, 2024
Dublin City Council
100 Civic Plz
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Members of the Dublin City Council,
I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the Fallon 580 project. This project holds immense potential to benefit our community in multiple ways and represents a significant step forward in Dublin's development.

One of the most compelling aspects of the Fallon 580 project is its role in unlocking the extension of Dublin Boulevard, providing an essential alternative transportation route to Interstate 580 and enhancing connectivity between Dublin and Livermore. This infrastructure improvement will not only ease traffic congestion but also improve accessibility for residents, businesses, and visitors alike.

Additionally, I am pleased to note that the project includes dedicating land for Valley Link, a critical transportation initiative in the Tri-Valley region. This commitment underscores Dublin's proactive approach to supporting regional transportation solutions and enhancing mobility options for our growing community.

Furthermore, I appreciate the inclusion of a 40+ acre Nature Park as part of the project's development plan. This green space will provide valuable recreational opportunities for residents and contribute to enhancing our city's environmental sustainability.

In conclusion, I urge the City Council to continue its support for the Fallon 580 project. By doing so, we can realize significant benefits for our community, from improved transportation infrastructure to expanded recreational amenities and enhanced economic opportunities. Thank you for your leadership and dedication to making Dublin a vibrant and thriving city for all residents.

Sincerely,
David Haubert
Alameda County Supervisor, Vice President
First District

B O A R D O F S U P E R V I S O R S
1595
1596
1597
Dear City Council,
Firstly, as a resident of Camino Loop, I welcome Dublin Fallon 580 project.

However, I have two critical suggestions regarding Parcel #7 for consideration:
 Trench Filling: I recommend that the builder carefully reconsider the depth and filling of the trench. The current trench is about 30 feet deep, and how it filled could significantly impact foundation stability, soil erosion, and overall safety during and after construction. Adjusting the fill depth to 15 feet or even lower could help mitigate these risks, ensuring the long-term integrity of both existing and new structures.
 Unit Placement: it’s crucial to relocate the units right adjacent to the boundary line further south, as illustrated in the picture. During the last hearing, the builder proposed constructing new properties only 25-30 feet away from existing ones, which is even less than the length of a school bus (35-40 feet). Building such a substantial 128-unit development in such proximity raises significant concerns about space, privacy, and the overall quality of life for existing residents.

By addressing both the structural concerns of trench filling and the community impact of unit placement, the project can better integrate into the existing community, ensuring safety, environmental responsibility, and resident satisfaction.

Thank you for considering my concerns and suggestions!
Flora(Yuhua) Bai< [email protected] C: 408.599.9634> 1598
Dublin Fallon 580 Project
City Council Meeting
July 16, 2024
1599
Project Location
Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan
Fallon
Village
Project
Site
1600
Project Location

PROJECT
SITE
I-580
FALLON
SPORTS
PARK

FALLON RD

CROAK RD
N
1601
Existing/Proposed Project
PARCEL 11 GC/CO

EXISTING PROPOSED
1602
Residential Parcels
• 238 units
• 30 affordable units (12.5%)
OR
40% in-lieu fee
60% constructed on-site (18 units)
N
N
Parcel 7

6.5 Ac
Parcel 8

7.2 Ac
1603
Access Routes
N N
1604
Architectural Styles
• Traditional Farmhouse
• Modern Farmhouse
• Contemporary
• Contemporary Spanish
• Modern French Country
1605
Landscape Guidelines
• Plant Palette
• Street Lighting
• Fencing Design
• Monument Entry Sign
1606
Development Agreement
• Affordable Housing (Inclusionary Zoning
Regulations Apply)
• Dublin Blvd Extension Right-of-Way
Dedication
• Community Facilities District for Service and
Maintenance of Public improvements
1607
Development Agreement
• Eastern Dublin Transportation Impact Fee
Credits
• Dublin Blvd Extension Project Mitigation
• Nature Community Park
• Public Improvements
1608
Environmental Review
• Prior CEQA Analysis
– Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan EIR (1993)
– East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and
Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002)
– Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005)
• Addendum
– Equal or Less Severe Impacts
1609
Visually Sensitive Ridgeline
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
EIR (1993)
Visually Sensitive Ridgelines
1610
Public Outreach/Meetings
• Community Meetings
– March 27, 28 & April 3, 2024
– Combined total of 50 attendees
• Planning Commission
– June 11, 2024
– Unanimously recommended approval (5-0) with the
recommendation to remove the Contemporary
architectural style
1611
Recommendation
Conduct the public hearing, deliberate, and take the following actions:
1) Adopt a Resolution Adopting an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Reports and Adopting General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments to Eliminate the 2.5-acre Public/Semi-Public Land Use Designation and to Convert Approximately 42.6 Acres of Open Space to the Parks/Public Recreation Land Use Designation;
2) Waive the reading and INTRODUCE the Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map and Approving Amendments to the Planned Development Zoning Stage 1 Development Plan Ordinance No. 32-05 and a Stage 2 Development Plan for the residential use; 3) Adopt a Resolution Approving the Vesting Tentative Tract Maps; and 4) Waive the reading and INTRODUCE the Ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and GH PacVest, LLC related to the Dublin Fallon 580 Project. 1612
1613
Proposed Grading
PARCEL 8
PARCEL 7
PARCEL 7
PARCEL 8
1614
Proposed Scenic Ridgeline
Fallon Village
Supplemental EIR (2005)
Proposed Scenic Ridgeline Resources
1615
July 16, 2024
SB 343
Senate Bill 343 mandates supplemental materials
that have been received by the City Clerk’s office that relate to an agenda item after the agenda packets
have been distributed to the City Council be available
to the public.

The attached documents were received in the City
Clerk’s office after distribution of the July 16, 2024, Regular City Council meeting agenda packet.

Item 6.1
1616
From: Crystal De Castro
To: Marsha Moore
Cc: Neda Zayer; Jeff Baker
Subject: FW: Comment Letter - Dublin Fallon 580 Project - City Council Date: Monday, July 15, 2024 4:40:05 PM
Attachments: Comment Letter - Sachin Fallon 580 Project_7.15.24.pdf Kingswood Park (1).pdf
Jordan Ranch Square Community Meeting Presentation - 6.28.22_adb7bfk5aw4.pdf image001.png
Hi Marsha,
Staff received the following comment letter for the City Council meeting tomorrow related to the Dublin Fallon 580 Project.

Crystal De Castro
Senior Planner
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568
(925) 833-6610 | (925) 833-6628 FAX
[email protected] | www.dublin.ca.gov
Mission Statement: The City of Dublin promotes and supports a high quality of life, ensures a safe and secure environment, fosters new opportunities, provides equity across all programs, and champion a culture of diversity and inclusion.

IMPORTANT NOTICE - Effective July 5, the City of Dublin is implementing a new Citizen Self-Service Portal for processing business license applications, public works permits, planning applications, building permits, and fire permits. For more details, visit www.dublin.ca.gov/CSS. During the transition, there will be a blackout period from June 27 to July 4, during which applications will not be accepted; permits, plans, and business licenses will not be processed or issued; and payments will not be taken.

From: Sachin Bhandari <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2024 4:24 PM
To: Crystal De Castro <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Neda Zayer <[email protected]>; Jason Holder <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]> Cc:

Subject: Comment Letter - Dublin Fallon 580 Project - City Council CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi,
1617
Please see attached my comment letter regarding the Fallon 580 Project, which I believe is on the agenda for the City Council of Dublin. Please also see attached a concept description of Jordan Ranch Square Park, as well as a community meeting presentation put together by the Parks and Recreation Department during the design stages of the park. These documents are referred to in my comment letter.

Best,
Sachin
1618
7/14/2024
To the City Council of Dublin,
I have previously written in regards to the Fallon 580 Project, in a comment letter submitted on 6/4/2024. Almost none of the content of my comment letter, or the lawyer that our homeowner’s association (Kingswood HOA) obtained were addressed in the Planning Commission Meeting of 6/11/2024.

Completely new information was presented at the Planning Commission meeting, which is unfortunate, because it did not allow an opportunity for public review and comment. One of the major revelations at that meeting was the extent of grading on Parcel 7 and Parcel 8. The substantial grading would completely change and adversely impact some of the visually significant ridgelines in the area.

Below is an image taken from the PacVest presentation:

Shortly after the Planning Commission meeting, the City of Dublin decided to put forth the matter to a City Council vote. This expedited final review leaves inadequate time to engage with air quality and traffic experts, with whom we are still in the process of engaging.

The nature of ‘jamming’ this project through is unfortunate and has created wide distrust in the good faith of the City of Dublin and in particular of the Planning Department in our community.

In my own conversations with neighbors, particularly upon review of the minutes and video transcript of the meeting that took place on June 11th, the most prevalent emotion that community members expressed to me was disgust. People are disgusted with the frankly unseemly concessions to the developers and the complete intransigence in taking any feedback from the community into account.
1 1619
It should be noted that I have not met anyone opposed to the Dublin Blvd extension in principle, however the treatment of the various parcels - particularly Parcels 7 and 8 were of significant concern to our community and it is again a shame that rather than engage with our feedback the developer and the Planning Department decided to take a route of dissemblance, particularly around the disclosure of project details.

I. Review of the Staff Report
1) Attachments 3 & 4
These attachments are new materials not presented at any prior meeting, and seem to further indicate an incomplete project proposal shared to the public.

Both of these attachments make reference to ‘pocket parks’ which are concerning, because the specifications of these parks are incomplete. Most parks have 24/7 lighting, and the presence of such lighting would be a significant nuisance to members of our community.

In the case of Parcel 7, the ‘pocket park’ is shown within a 25 - 35 foot distance from the adjacent building in Kingswood HOA - which would make it a source of nuisance lighting to the residents immediately to the north. The luminous output, color temperature, and duration of any lighting would need to be specified for a complete environmental analysis - and this has not been provided for. Any such lighting should be disclosed and analyzed per CEQA to demonstrate that it has a non-significant impact to immediate neighbors.

We do presume that lighting would be present, at the pocket park was identified as a point for emergency vehicles to gather.
2 1620
Parcel 8 also has a ‘pocket park’ presumably also with 24/7 lighting that would be a nuisance to the east facing side of our community. The nature of the lighting and specifications regarding this park are also incomplete and should be disclosed for a complete environmental analysis. 2) Attachments 5
a. Section 81 calls for the allowance of Saturday work. This should never even be considered. The Croak Road Development (directly adjacent to the Fallon 580 project) violated conditions for use by initially working Saturdays and Sundays, and then later worked on Saturdays - to the considerable disruption of the adjacent community. As recently as Saturday 7/13/2024 - this has continued to be an issue with the Croak Road Development - for which the City of Dublin has a record of lax enforcement. 3 1621
The City’s own CEQA analysis cites mitigation measure MM 3.10/5.0 - which would limit construction activities to ‘normal daytime hours’. The City defines this as 7:30 am to 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday, so it is would seem that Saturday work would not be permissible per the City’s own cited mitigation method for noise, see below:
“MM 3.10/5.0 In order to minimize the impact of construction noise, all operations should comply with local noise standards relating to construction activities. When construction occurs near residential areas, then it should be limited to normal daytime hours to minimize the impact. Stationary equipment should be adequately muffled and located as far away from sensitive receptors as possible.” (Attachment 10 - p. 127) b. The Temporary fencing called for is vague and also presents an incomplete specification which would not allow for a full environmental analysis. If this temporary fencing obstructs views of Visually Significant Ridgelines for the duration of construction - which could last up to 10 years (Attachment 8 - Section 5.8), then it would seem to have a significant impact unaccounted for in the City’s CEQA analysis. For this not to be the case, temporary fencing must not obstruct views of visually significant ridgelines. 4 1622
c. The traffic control plan presented is vague and provides no specific information as to how heavy construction equipment would be staged. In the case of the Croak Road Development, heavy construction equipment simply parked along Central Parkway and was and remains a visual eyesore in the community.

While the City is well within its rights to allow for poorly planned visual eyesores, if this traffic control plan allowed for heavy construction equipment to obstruct the views of Visually Significant Ridgelines for the duration of construction - which could last up to 10 years (Attachment 8 - Section 5.8), then it would seem to have a significant impact unaccounted for in the City’s CEQA analysis. For this not to be the case, the traffic control plan must not allow for construction equipment to obstruct views of visually significant ridgelines. This specifically means that heavy equipment cannot be staged along Pandora Way or block south facing views of Jordan Ranch Square Park, otherwise this would trigger a revised CEQA analysis.
5 1623
d. The widening of Pandora Way was not disclosed in any of the prior meetings or documents. This newly disclosed aspect of the project may obstruct visually significant ridgelines and was not accounted for in the City’s CEQA Analysis.

The widening of Pandora Way is also inconsistent with the development plans for Jordan Ranch Square Park whose conceptual design (shown to scale) does not illustrate a widening of Pandora Way and specifically does not indicate parking along the south border of Pandora Way. This is significant because the City Council voted to approve these designs, funding has been obtained, and construction is slated to start within 2 months of this letter per the Parks and Recreation Dept website. This would seem to be a significant impact to an already existing project that was unaccounted for in the Planning Dept’s CEQA Analysis.
6 1624
3) Attachments 6
The Tract Maps provided within Attachment 6 were not disclosed in any previous meeting nor provided to the public prior to the Staff Report on 7/12/2024. Without these tract maps, it is questionable whether a complete CEQA analysis was even possible to have been performed.
7 1625
The first question raised by these tract maps is why the City of Dublin chose not to follow the mitigations cited in its CEQA Analysis.
“MM 3.8/4.1 Alterations of existing natural contours shall be minimized. Grading shall maintain the natural topography as much as possible. Grading beyond actual development areas shall be for remedial purposes only. “ (Attachment 10 - pg 19) The question at hand is whether alterations of natural contours were minimized, and whether grading attempted to maintain the natural topography as much as possible. There has been no factual evidence presented that the natural topography was maintained as much as possible.

Rather the developer asserted that it was infeasible, with no supporting evidence, which would seem to make this assertion unsubstantiated opinion.
8 1626
The above image is taken from the developer’s presentation during the 7/11/2024 Planning Commission meeting. In this image, we see a view of the property as it is today looking west.

In the subsequent image, we see a simulation of the grading. Prima Facie, the grading does not maintain any of the natural contours within the boundaries of Parcel 7, and none of the natural topography has been maintained. This is because none of the existing topography is at the level of the Jordan Ranch Development to the North.

What these tract maps and quite dramatic images show is that the City of Dublin has not followed its own mitigation measures as set forth in Attachment 10. 9 1627
Other mitigation measures called as part of the City’s own CEQA Analysis “MM 3.8/3.0 Preserve the natural open beauty of the hills and other important visual resources, such as creeks and major stands of vegetation. “ (Attachment 10 - pg 19) “MM 3.8/7.0 Preserve views of designated open space areas.” (Attachment 10 - pg 19) The meaning of ‘preserve’ according to Oxford Languages is to maintain (something) in its original or existing state. The ‘natural open beauty of the hills’ and the ‘views of designated open space areas’ have not been preserved.

It is ironic that the City states in its CEQA Analysis and reply to our comment letters that these mitigation methods allow for the proposed development plan. In fact MM 3.8/3.0 & 3.8/4.1 would instruct against re-grading Parcels 7 and 8 in the way in which it has been proposed, as these clearly do not preserve the hills, views, or natural topography cited by the mitigation methods.

GHPacvest makes the argument that narrow corridors of these views remain, and this argument was repeated in replies to our comment letter.

But actually the views are not preserved, because to preserve something is to retain it in its unaltered state (Oxford Languages). ‘Preserve’ is the language used by the mitigation method. Not ‘Lessen the impact’ or ‘Minimize’. The views from Jordan Ranch Square are not preserved.

Furthermore, a closer inspection of the tract maps reveals that the proposed plan has a parking lot against the ledge of the ridge. So even if we were to accept the analysis of a narrow subset of the 10 1628
previous view constituting a ‘preservation’ - which goes without saying that we are not aligned with said analysis - the views are still obstructed by a large parking lot in the back of the community. The views are still obstructed by parked cars.
4) Attachment 8
a.
11 1629
Section 5.8 - Phasing / Timing would seem to be inconsistent with the CEQA Analysis performed by the City and numerous mitigation measures set forth in the project that promise for limited duration or short-term impacts.

For example,
“MM 3.6/27.0 The potential impacts of short-term construction-related erosion and sedimentation can be reduced by timing grading activities to avoid the rainy season as much as possible, and by implementing one or more of the following interim control measures, which are designed to prevent concentration of runoff, control runoff velocity, and trap silt. Required measures for a specific project will be determined by the City and be a requirement of the grading permit. ƒ Water bars; ƒ Mulch-and-net blankets on exposed slopes; ƒ Straw bale dikes; ƒ Temporary culverts and swales; ƒ Sediment traps; and/or ƒ Silt fences.” (Attachment 10 - pg 91)
MM 3.6/27.0 discusses timing grading activities to avoid the rainy season. And yet the phasing clause of the contract stipulate,
“... this agreement contains no requirements that Developer must initiate or complete any action, including without limitation, development of the Project within any period of time set by the City… It is the intention of this provision that Developer be able to develop the property in accordance with its own time schedules and the project approvals.”
If there are no requirements, without limitation, of the development of the project within any period of time set by the City, then how can the City claim that grading activities will be timed to avoid rainy season as a mitigation measure? It would seem that the Developer is not contractually bound to perform any time based mitigation methods set forth in this project.

There are numerous other mitigation methods that seem to also be questionable based on this contract.
“MM 3.10/4.0 Developers shall submit to the City a Construction Noise Management Program that identifies measures to be taken to minimize impacts on existing planning area residents. The program will include a schedule for grading and other major noise generating activities that will limit these activities to the shortest possible number of days. Hours of construction activities shall be limited in keeping with Dublin ordinances.

The Program for construction vehicle access to the site shall minimize construction truck traffic through residential areas. If construction traffic must travel through residential areas, then a mitigation plan should be developed. The Program may include barriers, berms or restrictions on hours.” (Attachment 10 - pg 127) 12 1630
MM 3.10 / 4.0 seems as if it would be rendered completely unenforceable per the contract provision specified above. This is because, per the contract section 5.8, the City would have no legal standing to enforce a schedule for noise generating activities.

If these mitigation methods are not enforceable, the City would need to revise its CEQA Analysis and take into account that certain mitigation measures cannot be enforced per its contract with the developer. In some cases this might lead to substantial noise or air quality impacts that were unaccounted for in Attachment 10. b. If the project allows for a large commercial space in Parcels 1 and 2, and these are intended to one day be linked to Dublin Blvd, Fallon Rd, and Croak Rd, it would seem that the Traffic Analysis of this project would be incomplete and the impacts of Parcels 1 and 2 would need to be factored into a CEQA analysis to get a complete picture of the traffic impact for this project. 5) Attachment 10 - CEQA Analysis
This CEQA analysis was not shared until July 12 2024 in the staff report, despite requests for documentation. These requests are captured in the City’s own reply to the comment letters:
13 1631
“This comment requests the City to provide the commenter with all CEQA documentation completed for the proposed project and all public meetings or hearings concerning the proposed project.” (Attachment 13, pg 8)
Unfortunately, despite these requests made, and despite the City’s acknowledgment of receiving said requests - the City has slow dripped out relevant information of the project days before key votes (such as the City Council vote) in an effort to prevent a full and complete disclosure of the incomplete CEQA Analysis that was performed.
a. The key questions raised in Attachment 10:
“Are there substantial changes to the project involving new or more severe significant impacts?” (Attachment 10 - coversheet - pg 6 of PDF)
The City’s analysis is flawed. Yes, clearly there are substantial changes to the project. The proposed plan in 2024 is a completely different plan than what was proposed in 2002 or 2005.

The density of development is different. The FAR ratio is different. Importantly, the City would allow for development on Visually Significant Ridges - altering the character of the neighborhood and destroying existing public views and views from the south side of the community to the west and east of Jordan Ranch Square Park. The traffic analysis performed has unrealistic assumptions of traffic usage along Central Parkway and is deficient in its analysis of smaller roads such as Pino Grande, Twain Harte, and Pandora Way. “Are there substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is undertaken involving new or more severe significant impacts?”
(Attachment 10 - coversheet - pg 6 of PDF)
Yes - the public will lose access to Visually Significant Ridgelines which were expressly designated in maps in the previous EIR as restricted development areas. This is both new and significant. Traffic - particularly at the intersection of Pino Grande and Central Parkway will likely be at LOS D or worse. Grading will alter the existing topography. The commercial density of the project has numerous downstream significant impacts. “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 than previously analyzed; 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?” (Attachment 10 - coversheet - pg 6 of PDF)
Yes, in the case of the Visually Significant Ridgeline, Jordan Ranch Square Park was developed with a site specific plan to preserve the views of said ridgeline. This could not have been known 14 1632
at the time of the previous EIR. The plan, as presented by the Parks and Recreation Dept., and voted for and approved by the Dublin City Council, calls for preserving views from the park. The so called ‘mitigation methods’ cited by the City’s CEQA analysis actually show that the project as presented by the City is inconsistent with its own stated guidelines of preserving topography, views, and hills. The loss of these visually significant ridgelines alone has a significant effect not addressed in a previous EIR.
b. Aesthetics
The Aesthetics portion of the CEQA Analysis is filled out incorrectly.

The project would:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista. b) Would substantially damage scenic resources
c) Would substantially degrade the existing visual character and quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. Note that public views are defined as those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points - as defined by the City’s own CEQA Analysis.
15 1633
The Staff Report fails to mention the Visually Significant Ridgelines expressly shown in the 2005 EIR which specifically call for restricted development.

The CEQA Analysis fails to mention these areas at all or even show them on maps in the staff report.

These visually significant ridgelines cut through significant parts of Parcels 7 and 8 and would be irrevocably altered via the proposed grading as part of the plan.

Per the same analysis presented in page 10 of this document, the City has not followed its own mitigation measures.
“MM 3.8/2.0 Implement the land use plan for the Project site which emphasizes retention of the predominant natural features, such as ridgelines and watercourses, and sense of openness that characterize eastern Dublin.” (Attachment 10 - pg 19) “MM 3.8/3.0 Preserve the natural open beauty of the hills and other important visual resources, such as creeks and major stands of vegetation. “ (Attachment 10 - pg 19) “MM 3.8/4.1 Alterations of existing natural contours shall be minimized. Grading shall maintain the natural topography as much as possible. Grading beyond actual development areas shall be for remedial purposes only. “ (Attachment 10 - pg 19) 16 1634
“MM 3.8/7.0 Preserve views of designated open space areas.” (Attachment 10 - pg 19) “MM 3.8/8.1 The City should require that projects with potential impacts on scenic corridors to submit a detailed visual analysis with development project application.

Applicants will be required to submit graphic simulations and/or section drawn from affected travel corridors through the parcel in question, representing typical views of the parcel from scenic routes. The graphic depiction of the location and massing of the structure and associated landscaping can then be used to adjust the project design to minimize the visual impacts.” (Attachment 10 - pg 19)
“MM 3.8/5.1 Structures shall not be located where they would obstruct scenic views or appear to extend above an identified scenic ridgetop (i.e., silhouetted) when viewed from designated scenic routes.” (Attachment 10 - pg 20)
Per the arguments made earlier in this comment (page 10), the views from Jordan Ranch Square (nor Fallon Rd, nor 580 - scenic highways) are not preserved. This is inconsistent with MM 3.8/3.0, MM 3.8/4.1, MM3.8/7.0
In the case of MM 3.8/2.0, the visually significant ridgeline, as identified by the City’s own 2005 EIR is graded and filled, and then developed on top of, which is antithetical to the “sense of openness that characterizes eastern Dublin”.

Per MM 3.8/8.1 - No detailed visual analysis of altered views was completed and submitted with project documents in the staff report. This mitigation measure specifically instructs the City to ‘require’ this as part of the application package.

Finally, per MM 3.8/5.1 structures should not be located where they would obstruct scenic views, and yet per GHPacvests June 11 2024 presentation, there are structures in Parcel 7 that obstruct scenic views. The mitigation also calls for structures not appearing above an identified scenic ridgetop, and yet the visually significant ridgetops are graded, filled, and built on top of with structures as part of the plan presented in the tract maps in Attachment 6, and discussed as part of my comment letter in pages 7 - 11.
17 1635
“The Eastern Dublin EIR contains Figure 3.8-H, Visually Sensitive Ridgelands, depicting portions of the Eastern Dublin area that contains ridges and ridgelands which are considered to be visually sensitive. As identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the lower and hillside areas located closer to I-580 with topographic elevations generally ranging between approximately 460 and 480 feet above sea level are designated as “Visually Sensitive Ridgelands-restricted development.” As described above, the Eastern Dublin EIR determined that development associated with implementation of the EDSP would alter the character of existing scenic vistas and obscure important sightlines. These impacts were determined to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and listed above.” (Attachment 10 - pg 21)
The problem with this paragraph from the CEQA Analysis is the last sentence. In fact the City has shown disregard, if not contempt, for these mitigation methods when in all cases the adopted EDSP mitigation measures and related policies would instruct against filling and grading the visually significant ridgelines in Parcels 7 and 8. These mitigation methods are not implemented under any rational analysis of the project, and therefore the loss of the visually significant ridgline is in fact a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and would require a more detailed environmental review.
“Further, the proposed project would be required to implement other Mitigation Measures (MM

3.8/3.0, MM 3.8/4.0, MM 3.8/4.1, MM 3.8/4.4, MM 3.8/4.5, MM 3.8/5.1) identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, which include design features to minimize visual impacts (e.g., sensitive grading, sensitive engineering design, revegetation). With implementation of the aforementioned Mitigation Measures, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts to scenic vistas and views, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur.” (Attachment 10 - pg 22) This has been discussed above and also on pages 7 - 11 of this comment letter, however in no way shape or form does the current plan preserve the:
–views
–hills
–topography
18 1636
–ridgelines
–sense of openness that characterize eastern Dublin
–natural contours
which is the specific language used in MM 3.8/2.0, MM 3.8/3.0, MM 3.8/4.1, MM 3.8/7.0, MM

3.8/5.1. If the required obligation is to implement some or all of these mitigation measures, then certainly what has been presented fails to satisfy the requirement.

The CEQA Analysis does not explain how the project has implemented these mitigation methods, and the ambiguity in their analysis points to the fact that there is no basis for which the City can claim any attempt was made to preserve the views, hills, topography, ridgelines, sense of openness that characterizes eastern Dublin, nor the natural contours of the land.

Without these mitigation methods in place, the alteration of the visually significant ridgelines in parcel 7 and 8 substantially impacts a scenic vista, substantially damages scenic resources, and substantially degrades the existing visual character and quality of public views of the site and its surroundings.

A picture of this ridgeline was captured in my original comment letter. Another view of this ridgeline can be seen here:

This image was taken from a 2022 Dublin Parks and Recreation Department Presentation in which the Parks Department specifically identified the south facing views of the park as a significant aspect of their site analysis.
19 1637
In 2022, after soliciting community feedback, Parks Dept put together the following concept for the Jordan Ranch Square Park, which was gathered from multiple community open sessions held at the site of the park:
20 1638
This concept for Jordan Ranch Square Park was voted and approved by the City Council of Dublin. In the lower right corner, one the key points raised by the Parks Dept was the ‘Views’ from the park.

One of the major points of feedback from the community - as determined by the Parks Department and approved by the City Council - “Protecting Views”. The Design Action – “Revising Design Geometries to accentuate the views from the park. Seat has also been provided along the lawn edge so that views can be passively appreciated.” Views of what… ? Views of the Visually Significant Ridgeline - identified in the 2005 EIR. This park underwent a 2 year planning and review cycle, has approximately $2M budgeted for its 21 1639
completion and is due to break ground in August or September of 2024 per the latest updates from the Parks and Recreation Department.

These views are not a matter of unsubstantiated opinion, actually they are captured in key planning documents by the City of Dublin and shaped the design of the park. The south facing lawn of the park was left open so that these views could be appreciated.

The Fallon 580 project would completely alter the views from the park of the visually significant ridgeline. The existing ridgeline would no longer exist. Views from the park specifically would be limited to narrow streets, and the end of said views would be a parking lot. This is a substantial impact to a scenic view, and the CEQA analysis document itself refers to these views as from a publicly accessible vantage point.
6) Attachment 13
“As described in the Initial Study, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to standardized tract development, obscuring distinctive natural features, alteration of hillsides, ridges, and watercourses, alteration of Dublin’s visual identity as a freestanding city, scenic vistas, and scenic routes. All of these impacts were determined to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR.” (Attachment 13 - p. 3)
Unfortunately the CEQA Analysis was not made available until July 12 2024. As described in significant detail in pages 7 - 11, and 15 - 21, the City has failed to incorporate nearly all of the mitigation methods cited in the CEQA analysis and in fact the mitigation methods cited actually instruct the city NOT to alter the views, hills, topography, natural contours, etc. “In compliance with Mitigation Measure 3.8/5.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the City has prepared and adopted the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards which contains five overall scenic corridor implementing policies, specific scenic corridor zone policies, and development standards for 6 zones and implementation procedures that promote the preservation of scenic vistas from the three transportation corridors – Tassajara Road, Interstate 580 (I-580) and Fallon Road. Views from Jordan Ranch Square, Pandora Way, and adjacent neighborhood vantages are not identified in the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards or the EDSP EIRs as significant vistas or designated scenic routes” (Attachment 13 - p. 3)
Per the City’s own CEQA Analysis, it defines Public Views as “those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point”. Jordan Ranch Square Park would certainly be a publicly accessible vantage point.
22 1640
More importantly however, in the Parks and Recreation Dept Community Meeting held on June 28 2022, the Park and Rec Dept identified scenic views facing south from Jordan Ranch Square Park as a key part of their site analysis. This was codified in a concept design for the park, which was put together with significant community feedback and prepared by the Parks Department, and was then voted and approved by the Dublin City Council, which specifically identified the the south facing views from the park as a key aspect of the site which would influence the park’s design. What this all points to is that the City of Dublin and the community surrounding the park has identified the south facing views from the park as scenic vistas. The views overlook the VSRs identified in the 2005 EIR, which were marked for restricted development. The CEQA Analysis and rebuttal to the comment letter are flawed in failing to consider the impact to the scenic vistas of the VSRs from the vantage point of Jordan Ranch Square Park.

Furthermore, the views of the same VSRs are also impacted from the spots identified as scenic highways - such as Fallon Rd and 580. The VSR is proposed to be graded and filled, in direct opposition to the mitigation measures set forth in the previous EIRs. “The project applicant has determined that due to the site topography, it is infeasible to place the residential buildings downslope due to inadequate access and connectivity between the proposed project and the adjacent neighborhood to the north. The proposed project would grade the site to provide a level building pad for the proposed residential development at the same elevation as the adjacent neighborhood.” (Attachment 13 - p. 4) Where is the evidence that supports this claim? In the absence of any documentation showing the placement of residential buildings in a different configuration, this would seem to be an unsubstantiated claim. Dublin has other projects built downslope from a visually significant ridgeline. A prime example of a development project designed to protect scenic resources designated VSR is the nearby ‘Irongate’ development. Irongate provides connectivity with the surrounding community at a different grade via pedestrian pathways, and not roadways. I proposed such pathways in my prior comment letter to no avail. “Due to the project’s location in the southern portion of the Fallon Village planning area, proposed buildings would not obstruct views of the main scenic ridgeline, as designated in the Eastern Dublin EIR, which borders the larger Eastern Dublin planning area to the north and east.” (Attachment 13 - p. 4)
This is on its face a false statement. The original ridgeline as designated in the 2005 EIR would be filled in with grading. Whatever an observer might be looking at post project completion is something other than the protected ridgeline designated in the 2005 EIR. 23 1641
“Further, the proposed residential development on Parcel 7 has been designed with breaks between the buildings to preserve some view locations from the north looking south over the ridge where the topography slopes down.” (Attachment 13 - p. 4) The meaning of ‘preserve’ according to Oxford Languages is to maintain (something) in its original or existing state. The original state of the views are significantly compromised in the plan presented by the City. Additionally, even the narrow corridors of views that remain are still obstructed by the parking lot - where parked cars would still obstruct views. Finally, the original ridgeline would be filled and graded, and thus not consistent with the 2005 EIR which would restrict development in these VSRs.
“in accordance with the mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, to ensure the project is consistent with City of Dublin design standards, property development regulations and performance standards related to aesthetics and to lessen the severity of visual changes resulting from the proposed project.” (Attachment 13 - p. 4) See my previous replies to the supposed mitigation measures. The mitigation measures cited by the city are actually evidence that the project would require a deeper environmental review. “Currently, the intersection of Central Parkway & Panorama/ Pino Grande Road (Intersection #15 in the LTA) is an unsignalized all-way stop. The LOS & delay levels did not trigger a need to change the control type and signalize this location under any of the analyzed scenarios. Based on the near term plus project and cumulative plus project volumes expected at this location, the signal warrant analysis did not indicate a signal is warranted at this location. However, as traffic patterns change and more development is added, the City will periodically conduct new counts and reassess the control and safety at this location.” (Attachment 13 - p. 6) The City’s arguments are non-responsive to the issues presented at specifically the intersection of Pino Grande and Central Parkway.

While the City’s analysis tries to come up with a statistical model spread out over all the major thoroughfares of Dublin - it fails to take an intensely local model and consider the impacts to the small feeder roads into and out of Parcels 7 and 8.

Implausibly, the City traffic report shows no additional eastbound or westbound traffic on Central Parkway during rush hour. The City has not taken into account the traffic situation on Pino Grande, Twain Harte, or Pandora Way. These traffic impacts are significant and are signs of deficiencies in the traffic analysis.
“A new connection from Croak Road to the future planned Dublin Boulevard Extension will be constructed and will further disperse both Dublin East Ranch and full buildout of GH PacVest traffic to alternative routes, thus contributing to the same or improved LOS at Central Parkway & Panorama/ Pino Grande Road (Intersection #15 in the LTA).” (Attachment 13 - p. 8) 24 1642
This is irrelevant since Parcel 7 is not connected to either Croak Rd or Dublin Blvd per the presented plan, and the previous comment letter specifically focused on the cumulative impact and how Parcel 7 would make traffic worse around Pino Grande, Twain Harte, and Pandora Way. Additionally Parcels 7, 8, and the Croak Rd Development are all assigned to Cottonwood Creek Elementary and thus traffic would be heavily biased to using Central Parkway to drop off children during am rush hour traffic.
“Traffic will have the option to make a U-turn at the All-Way Stop control intersection at Central/Croak (unless the City decides to restrict this movement) or turn right onto Croak Road that connects to Fallon Road on the south. Residents will also be able to turn left onto Central Parkway at Pino Grande Road.” (Attachment 13 - p. 9)
During rush hour, making a U-turn at a 4 way stop would be highly impractical. The City neglected to consider alternative measures such as a traffic circle that could have allowed for effective U-turns in the Croak Rd Development. This means that making a right turn from Twain Harte and making a U-turn is realistically not an option for most traffic, and largely traffic from Camino Loop would be biased to making a left turn and utilizing Pino Grande to connect to Central.

Making a Right turn from Twain Harte to Central, then a right turn at Croak, and then taking Croak to Fallon is roughly 60% longer of a route to get to either of the 580 exits. Also this is highly impractical for anyone in the community whose children attend Cottonwood Creek - which is the assigned school for both the Croak Rd Development and the Fallon 580 Development.

Which means that traffic is generally biased towards taking Central Parkway - exacerbating the poor traffic planning done for both the Croak Rd and Fallon 580 projects. “Central Pkwy would not be the only route that is available under near-term conditions. The model assumes a portion of the 500+ residential units would use Central Parkway in the near-term as expected. However, traffic from the East Ranch development would be able to use alternate routes such as Croak Road to Fallon Road and the northern portion of the development would also use Positano Parkway to Fallon” (Attachment 13 - p. 9) The specific table from my original comment letter, which I pulled from the traffic report, shows no increase in vehicular traffic moving either east bound or west bound on Central Parkway during morning rush hour times. Even if some traffic were to use Croak Road or Positano Parkway - the model used here is flawed. This is prima facie impossible. Many of the people living in the Croak Rd Development and the proposed Fallon 580 Development would be assigned to Cottonwood Creek Elementary school and would require driving to the school to drop off their children. The City’s arguments that because there are other roads available, no traffic would increase on Central Parkway during rush hour is simply not credible and reflective of the poor traffic planning done for both developments 25 1643
7) Attachment 14
“KOA makes several unsubstantiated or erroneous claims that the Project should be evaluated in its own new EIR – the fourth EIR- for this area, because according to the commenter: (1) the Project allegedly exceeds the intensity of development evaluated in the prior EIRs; and (2) the EIR Addendum relies on outdated analyses presented in the prior EIRs. The commenter seems focused on a claim that the City failed to assess alleged impacts to open space and scenic vistas, traffic impacts, and climate change impacts. For the reasons detailed below, KOA’s unsubstantiated claims do not warrant preparation of a subsequent EIR. KOA’s letter raise these issues without any evidence and KOA failed to meet its burden of proof required under CEQA.“ (Attachment 14 - p. 3)
KOAs claims are substantiated by the previous EIRs which call for the protection of Visually Significant Ridgelines which are captured in maps that overlie Parcels 7 and 8. They are substantiated by documents prepared by the Dublin Parks and Recreation office that discuss the importance of preserving views from Jordan Ranch Square, they also substantiated by the concept plan voted on and endorsed by the Dublin City Council for Jordan Ranch Square Park that specifically calls for preserving views from the park.

The substantial impact is that the park was designed around preserving the views, is budgeted for, and slated for construction to imminently begin, and is now jeopardized by the destruction of VSR views from the park.

Other evidence are numerous discrepancies in mitigation methods cited by the City and the plan which is actually inconsistent with the cited mitigation methods. Finally the fact that the original EIRs call for a completely different plan.
“The EIR Addendum provides that several mitigation measures, which include subjecting the Project to design review, requirements for sensitive grading, sensitive engineering design, revegetation, are sufficient to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level. “ (Attachment 14 - p. 4)
These mitigation methods were discussed in other areas of my comments and do not in fact mitigate the destruction of the views. In fact the city improperly cites mitigations when in fact the mitigations call for keeping the original topography where possible.

Crucially the City has never demonstrated with any evidence that it would be impossible or infeasible to preserve the original VSR by minimally grading Parcel 7 and Parcel 8. The only point presented is the ‘unsubstantiated opinion’ of the developer that it would be infeasible.

There has been no factual evidence presented that parcel 7 or 8 could not have residential buildings built downslope of the ridgeline, or in such a way as to minimize grading and limit development.
26 1644
“In North Coast, the Court of Appeal upheld as valid a mitigation measure requiring the preparation and implementation of a future landscaping plan as sufficient for reducing the visual and scenic impacts of a proposed water tank. “ (Attachment 14 - p. 4 - 5) This is not an applicable case. In North Coast the situation was how to hide a visually unappealing element (water tank) with visually appealing mitigation (landscaping).

In this case, the previous EIR specifically cites the ridgeline as ‘visually significant’ as demarcated on an exhibit in 2005. The planning and recreation department in 2022 cited the same views as key elements of Jordan Ranch Square Park. In December 2022, the Dublin City Council voted for a conceptual design which specifically states that preserving views (of the ridgeline) as a key element of the park. In 2024, shortly after this comment letter, the park is slated to begin construction, with millions of dollars slated for development.

North Coast is not applicable, because in this case we are not hiding a visually unappealing element, but rather preserving (‘keeping in its original state’ per Oxford Languages) a visually appealing element. The City plan as presented would not be consistent with preserving the views, and in fact the mitigation measures cited by the City actually instruct the city to leave the topography unaltered.
8) Conclusion
The development of Parcels 7 and 8 within Visually Significant Ridgelines has a significant aesthetic impact which would create a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. This scenic vista is identified in the 2005 EIR on a map directly overlaid on Parcels 7 and 8. The vista is identified as recently as 2022, 2023, and 2024 in planning documents prepared by the City of Dublin for the Jordan Ranch Square Park as being key elements of the site.

It would seem indefensible to claim that there is no significant impact to the aesthetic nature of these scenic views once they are filled and graded. The claim made that ‘mitigation measures’ are being taken is ridiculous on its face when the mitigation measures specifically state that natural topography, hills, contours, views, etc should be preserved - which according to Oxford Language means ‘unaltered’.

The City Council should shake off the deficient analysis of the planning department and the unfounded enthusiasm of the planning commission and realize that for our community - having scenic views of the ridgeline destroyed and replaced with housing within 25 - 35 feet of our southern boundary is not a good outcome. There is room for community feedback in this plan, but it would require the City Council to postpone their vote on this issue.

Best,
Sachin Bhandari
Kingswood HOA Board Member & Citizen of Dublin
27 1645
COMMUNITY MEETING 01

JORDAN RANCH NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE
JUNE 28TH, 2022
1646

NEIGHBORHOOD
JORDAN
RANCH

PROJECT BACKGROUND SQUARE

INTRODUCTION
This 2-acre park in the City of Dublin’s Jordan Ranch Development will be designed as a neighborhood square for the surrounding community. Located off of Central Parkway and adjacent to Cottonwood Creek School, this park will be a central open space for the area and a playful gathering space for all.

MASTER PLAN
2022 Parks and Recreation Master Plan: Designates parcel as Future Neighborhood Square

PROJECT COST
$1.9 million

PROJECT COMPLETION
Spring 2024

FUTURE CONTACT
Send emails via private zoom chat to Elisa for up-to-date project information. 1647

NEIGHBORHOOD
JORDAN
RANCH
SQUARE

TIMELINE AND PROCESS
WE ARE HERE!

YOUR PARK IS
COMPLETE!
JUNE 2022

PUBLIC PROCESS

BEGINS WITH A

COMMUNITY SURVEY
224 RESULTS RECEIVED!

ZOOM MEETING

TO DEVELOP PARK VISION

AND REVIEW SURVEY

RESULTS

PARKS AND

COMMUNITY SERVICES

COMMISSION MEETING

PLAN DEVELOPMENT
JUNE 28TH SEPTEMBER 19TH
FALL 2022
THRU SPRING 2023
AUGUST 13TH
OCTOBER 18TH SUMMER 2023
SPRING 2024

ON-SITE COMMUNITY MEETING

TO PROVIDE INPUT ON DESIGN

ALTERNATIVES

CONSTRUCTION
BEGINS
*
*

COUNCIL MEETING

TO PRESENT

CONCEPT PLANS
1648

NEIGHBORHOOD
JORDAN
RANCH
SQUARE

EXISTING CONDITIONS
1 2 3
4 1
2 4
3 1649

NEIGHBORHOOD
JORDAN
RANCH
SQUARE

PROJECT LOCATION
1-580

CENTRAL PARKWAY PROJECT
SITE

FALLON RD

PROJECT
SITE

CENTRAL PARKWAY
*
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
MORE THAN 1
MILE
WITHIN 1/4 WITHIN 1/2 MILE WITHIN 1 MILE
MILE

1.77%

9.29% 7.52%

81.42%
FINDINGS: MOST RESPONDENTS LIVE WITH 1/4 MILE OF THE PARK

COTTONWOOD

CREEK SCHOOL
1650

NEIGHBORHOOD
JORDAN
RANCH
SQUARE

COMMUNITY PARKS

FALLON SPORTS
PARK

JORDAN RANCH
PARK

SEAN DIAMOND
PARK

JORDAN RANCH

NEIGHBORHOOD
SQUARE
*

THE WAVE

1.8 MILES FROM JORDAN

RANCH SQUARE
2 POOLS + A WATER PARK
CLOVER
PARK
EXISTING PARKS WITHIN 2 MILES
1000’

WALKING

CORRIDOR
1651

NEIGHBORHOOD
JORDAN
RANCH
SQUARE

SCALE STUDIES
JORDAN RANCH PARK - 5 ACRES

TWO PLAYGROUND AREAS, A BASKETBALL COURT, A GRASS VOLLEYBALL COURT, A GROUP PICNIC AREA WITH TABLES AND BARBEQUE’S, SPACES FOR INFORMAL

FAMILY PICNICS, OPEN SPACE MEADOW FOR INFORMAL SPORTS, GAMES AND

ACTIVITIES TRAIL ACCESS, WATER FOUNTAINS, AND RESTROOMS CLOVER PARK - 2 ACRES

PLAYGROUND, PICNIC AREA, INFORMAL LAWN AREA, PUBLIC ART, FITNESS

EQUIPMENT, RESTROOM
FALLON SPORTS PARK -60 ACRES
FOUR LIGHTED SYNTHETIC TURF SOCCER FIELDS, CRICKET FIELD, SEVEN BASEBALL FIELDS (4 LITTLE LEAGUE, 2 LIGHTED SOFTBALL, 1 90’ LIGHTED DIAMOND, 5 LIGHTED BATTING CAGES), FOUR LIGHTED BOCCE BALL COURTS, FOUR SAND

VOLLEYBALL COURTS, AN ADVENTURE PLAYGROUND, RESTROOMS, CONCESSION

BUILDING, GROUP PICNIC, AND ADDITIONAL PARKING
SEAN DIAMOND PARK - 4 ACRES

TWO PLAYGROUNDS, A TENNIS COURT, GRASS VOLLEYBALL COURT, SHADED

PICNIC AREA, WALKING AND EXERCISE PATHS, ZIP LINE, ROSE GARDEN, RESTROOM

AND A GATHERING SPOT AT THE CENTER OF THE PARK
HOW DOES THE 2 ACRE NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE COMPARE TO LOCAL PARKS 1652

NEIGHBORHOOD
JORDAN
RANCH
SQUARE

SITE ANALYSIS

PROJECT
SITE
VIEWS
*
*
* *
*
*
LEGEND

PEDESTRIAN PATH OF TRAVEL

VEHICULAR PATH OF TRAVEL

PARKING

LIGHT POLES

GREENSPACE

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
*
1653

NEIGHBORHOOD
JORDAN
RANCH
SQUARE

COMMUNITY
FINDINGS: MOST RESIDENCE ARE COMPRISED OF YOUNG FAMILIES 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0-6 YEARS OLD 7-11 YEARS OLD 12-17 YEARS OLD NO COUPLE WITH

CHILDREN AT
HOME

SINGLE, NO

CHILDREN
MULTIGENERATIONAL
HOME

SINGLE WITH

CHILDREN AT
HOME

COUPLE,

CHILDREN

NO LONGER

SINGLE,

CHILDREN

NO LONGER

AT HOME

12.84%

3.17%

81.45%

29.36%

45.87% 44.95%
DO YOU HAVE CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 18?
(CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY)

WHICH ONE OF THESE CATEGORIES BEST APPLIES TO
YOUR HOUSEHOLD?

7.24% 5.88% 1.36% 0.90%
1654

NEIGHBORHOOD
JORDAN
RANCH
SQUARE

ACTIVE FACILITIES
FINDINGS: RESIDENCE WANT VARIOUS MULTI-USE ACTIVE FACILITIES 10 8
6 4
2 0

5.3 6.0

4.7 5.3 5.0

3.7 3.7

2.6 PLAY

STRUCTURES

MULTI-USE

PRACTICE
FIELD

WALKING
LOOP
TENNIS
COURT

FITNESS

EQUIPMENT

BASKETBALL
COURT

VOLLEYBALL
COURT

PICKLE BALL
COURT
WHICH ATHLETIC & ACTIVE FACILITIES WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE IN YOUR FUTURE PARK? RANK THE OPTIONS WITH 1 BEING THE MOST APPROPRIATE AND 8 THE LEAST. 1655

NEIGHBORHOOD
JORDAN
RANCH
SQUARE

SCALE STUDIES

SOCCER FIELD

TENNIS, VOLLEYBALL, PADDLE TENNIS

FULL BASKETBALL COURT
.2 MILE WALKING LOOP
HOW DOES THE 2 ACRE NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE ACCOMMODATE ACTIVITIES 1656

NEIGHBORHOOD
JORDAN
RANCH
SQUARE

AMENITIES RESULTS
FINDINGS: MOST RESIDENCE WOULD LIKE A SPACE WITH AMENITIES FOR OUTDOOR LEISURE

AND BACKYARD ACTIVITIES IN A COMFORTABLE ENVIRONMENT
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0

12.0 9.1 9.1

7.6 7.3 7.0 6.9 6.9 6.7 5.9

5.0 4.8

3.9 COVERED

SEATING
DEMONSTRATION
GARDEN

INFORMAL
LAWN

INFORMAL
PICNIC

AMPHI- BBQ AREA

THEATER

CHESS HORSE
SHOE

VIEWING

PLATFORM
PING
PONG
CORNHOLETIC TAC
TOE
NATIVE

HABITAT
WHICH AMENITIES WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE IN YOUR PARK? RANK THE OPTIONS WITH 1 BEING THE MOST APPROPRIATE AND 13 THE LEAST.
1657

NEIGHBORHOOD
JORDAN
RANCH
SQUARE

PRIMARY FACILITIES

PLAY STRUCTURES

MULTI-USE PRACTICE FIELD

WALKING LOOP

TENNIS COURT
BASKETBALL COURT: FULL OR HALF

VOLLEYBALL COURT

FITNESS EQUIPMENT

PICKLE BALL

ADDITIONAL INPUT

CRICKET FIELD

TRAMPOLINE

CYCLING

PULL-UP BARS

BMX TRACK

ZIP LINE
SOCCER

HANDBALL

BASKETBALL COURT

PRIMARY FACILITIES

COVERED SEATING

DEMONSTRATION GARDEN

INFORMAL LAWN

INFORMAL PICNIC

AMPHITHEATER

VIEWING PLATFORM

NATIVE HABITAT

BBQ AREA
CHESS

PING PONG

HORSE SHOE

CORN HOLE

TIC TAC TOE

ADDITIONAL INPUT
GARDEN
TREES
BBQ
GAZEBO

DOG PARK

COVERED PICNIC

BENCHES

SWIMMING

RESTROOMS

LIGHTING FOR SAFETY
WHAT WE’VE HEARD

BREAKOUT GROUPS FOR DISCUSSION

ACTIVE FACILITIES AMENITIES

MISCELLANEOUS
1658

NEIGHBORHOOD
JORDAN
RANCH
SQUARE

BREAKOUT QUESTIONS

1. Are there any findings you would like to review?

2. Are there any findings that are unexpected?

3. I would like to hear what is the most important thing you would like in the park.

4. Other takeaways or final thoughts?
1659

NEIGHBORHOOD
JORDAN
RANCH
WHAT’S NEXT SQUARE

TAKE SURVEY RESULTS AND PROVIDE THREE CONCEPTS FOR
COMMUNITY DISCUSSION ON-SITE + INPUT ON
AUGUST 13TH, 2022
PARK OPENING SPRING 2024!

THANK YOU
1660
NATURE*

PLAYGROUND
* FOREST WITH

NATIVE UNDER STORY
* POLLINATOR
GARDEN
*FITNESS STATION BIKE RACKS*
*BIKE RACKS
*FITNESS STATION
*FITNESS STATION
* HILLY SLIDE * AMPHITHEATER
* SHADE CANOPY
GROVE
* PICNIC AREA
* ENTRY COURT
*RESERVABLE COVERED
PICNIC AREA w/ BBQ MULTI USE

SPORTS COURT
FLEX LAWN*

PANDORA WAY

CENTRAL PARKWAY

PINO GRANDE ROAD

T W A I N H A R T E R O A D
A
A
B
C
C
B
0 10' 20'
1" = 20' N

NEIGHBORHOOD
JORDAN
RANCH
SQUARE

COMMUNITY INPUT

FOREST PARK - NEIGHBORHOOD UNDER THE TREES

NATURE PLAYGROUND - EXPLORING THE FOREST FLOOR

DUBLIN BEACH- FUN UNDER THE SUN

SHADE CANOPY GROVE- DISCOVER PLACES OF RESPITE IN THE FOREST FLEX LAWN FOREST PLAY BIKE PARKING

THE FOREST

NEIGHBORHOOD UNDER THE TREES

KEY FEATURES
- DENSE SHADE CANOPY FOR INFORMAL

ACTIVITIES
- ACTIVATED PARK EDGES FOR PLAY
- FLEX LAWN
DESIGN
• COMMON THEME: THE FOREST DESIGN WAS THE
COMMUNITIES 1ST CHOICE.
• DESIGN TAKEAWAY: PEOPLE SEEMED TO LIKE THE NATURAL

DESIGN OF THIS OPTION AND HOW IT LENT ITSELF TO THE
VALLEY VIEWS.
• DESIGN ACTION: SWA WILL CONTINUE TO DEVELOP

THE FOREST DESIGN CONCEPT AND WILL INCORPORATE
COMMUNITY INPUT.

SPORTS AND FITNESS
• COMMON THEME: THE COMMUNITY NOTED THAT SOME SORT
OF SPORTS COURT AND FITNESS ACTIVITY, WAS IMPORTANT.
• DESIGN TAKEAWAY: A SPORT COURT IS WANTED BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE THE MAIN ELEMENT OF THE PARK.
• DESIGN ACTION: THE SPORTS COURT WILL BE INCLUDED

IN THE PROJECT, AND SWA WILL BEGIN TO LOOK HOW

TO INCORPORATE A MULTI-USE SPORTS COURT AND BE
DEVELOPED INTO THE DESIGN.

PLAYGROUND
• COMMON THEME: A PLAYGROUND BE FOR CHILDREN OF ALL
AGES.
• DESIGN TAKEAWAY: DESIGN A PLAYGROUND FOR ALL AGES

AND INCLUDE PLAYGROUND SHOULD INCLUDE THE ELEMENT
WANTED BY THE COMMUNITY. IT WAS NOTED THAT THERE WERE

A FEW PLAY ELEMENTS IN OTHER DESIGN OPTIONS THAT THE

COMMUNITY WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE IN THE FOREST DESIGN
SCHEME
• DESIGN ACTION: AS THE CONCEPT SCHEME MOVES INTO

SCHEMATIC DESIGN SWA WILL DESIGN A PLAYGROUND THAT
RESPONDS TO THE COMMUNITIES SUGGESTIONS.

BBQ
• COMMON THEME: THERE WERE SEVERAL COMMENT NOTING
THAT MORE BBQ AREAS ARE NEEDED.
• DESIGN TAKEAWAY: ADD BBQ AREAS TO ADDRESS THE WANT.
• DESIGN ACTION: BBQ’S WILL BE ADDED TO EACH OF THE
PICNIC AREAS. THE FINAL LOCATIONS AND QUANTITY OF BBQ’S

WILL BE EVALUATED AND INCLUDED IN THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN
PHASE.

GARDEN
• COMMON THEME: THERE WERE SEVERAL COMMENTS FOR A

POLLINATOR GARDEN (SEVERAL COMMENTS FOR COMMUNITY

GARDEN)
• DESIGN TAKEAWAY: A POLLINATOR GARDEN OR PROPERLY

SELECTED PLANTING PALLET WOULD FIT NICELY INTO THE
FOREST DESIGN CONCEPT. A COMMUNITY GARDEN MAYBE

POSSIBLE, HOWEVER THIS WILL NEED TO BE EVALUATED BY
THE CITY.
• DESIGN ACTION: SWA WILL BEGIN TO SELECT PLANT

MATERIALS IN THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE, AND WILL
INCLUDE POLLINATOR PLANTING IN THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN.

A COMMUNITY GARDEN DOES NOT FIT INTO THE PROGRAM

ELEMENT OR GUIDELINES OF A NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE PARK,
SO THIS ELEMENT WILL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE DESIGN.

FLEX LAWN
• COMMON THEME: FLEX LAWN WAS SEEN AS AN IMPORTANT

ITEM, AND SEVERAL USES WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE

COMMUNITY, SUCH AS SPORTS LIKE VOLLEYBALL, AND
ADDITIONAL PARK SEATING.
• DESIGN TAKEAWAY: THE FLEX LAWN IS IMPORTANT AND WILL
BE INCLUDED IN THE FINAL DESIGN.
• DESIGN ACTION: THE FLEX LAWN WILL BE INCLUDED;

HOWEVER, NO PERMANENT SPORTS ELEMENTS WILL BE
INCLUDED. HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT PREVENT THE

COMMUNITY MEMBER FROM SETTING GAMES AND SPORTS

ON AN AS NEEDED BASES, AND THE LAWN WILL BE DESIGN
TO ACCOMMODATE MULTIPLE USES. BENCH SEATING WILL BE
ADDED TO THE EDGE OF THE LAWN AREA.

VIEWS
• COMMON THEME: PROTECTING VIEWS
• DESIGN TAKEAWAY: THIS WILL BE EVALUATED AND STUDIED

TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO BEST SUIT THE PARK AND THE
COMMUNITY.
• DESIGN ACTION: SWA WILL LOOK ARE REVISING DESIGN
GEOMETRIES TO ACCENTUATE THE VIEWS FROM THE PARK.

SEAT HAS ALSO BEEN PROVIDED ALONG THE LAWN EDGE SO
THAT VIEWS CAN BE PASSIVELY APPRECIATED.

SHADE
• COMMON THEME: SHADE IS IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY
• DESIGN TAKEAWAY: WE WILL HAVE TO STUDY THIS TO MAKE

SURE WE PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF SHADE
ELEMENTS.
• DESIGN ACTION: SWA WILL FURTHER LOOKING INTO ENSURING SHADE IS PROVIDED IN KEY AREAS.

PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING:
• COMMUNITY INPUT PROVIDED IS SWA’S PRELIMINARY
EVALUATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY’S RESPONSES. THE THEMES

IDENTIFIED WERE EVALUATED AND EXTRACTED BY NOTING

COMMENTS THAT APPEARED MULTIPLE TIMES AND ON DIFFERENT
DESIGN OPTIONS.
• WE HAVE NOT INCLUDED COMMENTS THAT ARE NOT FEASIBLE
FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE PARK. THESE COMMENTS

WERE RELATED TO THE REQUEST TO INCLUDE WATER FEATURE,

CERTAIN SPORTS COURT FACILITIES THAT WOULD NOT FIT THE
SITE, AND RESTROOMS FACILITIES.

Attachment 3
1661 319
Holder Law Group holderecolaw.com
1980 Mountain Blvd., Ste. 211
Oakland, CA 94607
(510) 338-3759
[email protected]
July 15, 2024

VIA EMAIL ONLY
City of Dublin City Council
Michael McCorriston, Mayor
Sherry Hu, Vice Mayor
Kashef Qaadri, Councilmember
Jean Josey, Councilmember
Janine Thalblum, Councilmember
Email: [email protected]
City of Dublin
Attn: Crystal De Castro, Senior Planner
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Email: [email protected]
Re: Follow Up Comments Concerning Proposed Dublin Fallon 580 Project (PLPA-2023- 00033; APNs 905-0001-006-03, 985-0027-002, 985-0027-005, and 985-0027-004) Dear Mayor McCorriston, Honorable Members of the Dublin City Council and Ms. De Castro:

On behalf of Kingswood Owners Association (“KOA”) we submit the following comments concerning the proposed Dublin Fallon 580 Project (the “Project”). We previously submitted comments to the Planning Commission. Unfortunately, neither City of Dublin (“City”) staff nor the commission responded to or substantively addressed these comments prior to the Planning Commission’s vote to recommend the Project for City Council approval.1 We respectfully submit the comments below, addressing the supplemental explanations and analysis provided in the staff report to the City Council and attachments thereto, with the intention of fostering a cooperative and efficient dialogue with City representatives and the Project applicant to resolve the issues identified herein.

As stated in our prior comments, due to numerous unanalyzed and unmitigated Project impacts, KOA (1) objects to substantial intensification of commercial uses as inconsistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (“EDSP”) and its associated EIR, without adequate supplemental environmental review, (2) objects to the proposed use of an Addendum to the EDSP EIRs as the environmental clearance document for this Project because the Project involves more than “minor” changes to existing Specific Plan designations and the changes proposed will cause new significant impacts, (3) urge modifications to the Project as proposed to avoid or reduce unstudied or downplayed significant environmental impacts, including substantially increased 1 See HLG Comments to Planning Commission re Dublin Fallon 580 Project, dated June 4, 2024; see also Sachin Bhandari comments regarding Project, dated June 4, 2024. KOA’s prior comments are incorporated herein by reference.
1662
City of Dublin, Mayor, City Council and City Planner July 15, 2024 Follow Up Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum Page 2 traffic congestion, traffic safety impacts, air quality impacts, construction noise impacts, significant impacts to public scenic resources, and impacts related to climate change and (4) reiterates its request for timely notice pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) in order to participate meaningfully in the process. Until the issues raised by KOA and other community stakeholders are resolved satisfactorily, we request that the City Council postpone its consideration of the Project for approval.

KOA understands that acquiring dedicated land for the future Dublin Boulevard Extension is a primary factor motivating cooperation between the City and the Project proponent. While KOA agrees that improving links Dublin and Livermore through this extension is a laudable goal and will provide local and regional benefits, the association’s objections relate to how the Project was planned and the negative environmental impacts on the existing community adjacent to the Project site. It is unfortunate that the desire for a Dublin Boulevard Extension may interfere with responsible and responsive planning for the development of Parcels 7 and 8. The issues KOA had identified in comments could be remedied if the City and Project proponent were serious about working with the adjacent community to avoid or minimize Project impacts (as we have urged), but the intransigence of City staff and the developer to community feedback may only intensify community opposition and lead to litigation over the Project. This is unfortunate and conflicts with what everyone, including KOA, wants.

City staff prepared an Initial Study for the Project and based on the Initial Study (“I/S”) determined that a CEQA addendum is the appropriate environmental review document. The following comments are based on our review of the I/S and Addendum for the Project, the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code, the updated EDSP, prior environmental review documents, and City-approved plans for the development of Jordan Ranch Square. These comments elaborate upon and supplement comments we submitted to the Planning Commission on June 4, 2024.

The I/S analysis generally references and relies upon mitigation measures described in the following documents: the 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (“Specific Plan EIR”), the 2002 East Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (“2002 SEIR”), and the 2005 Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (“2005 SEIR”) (collectively, the “EDSP EIRs”). The EDSP EIRs, collectively comprising thousands of pages of information and analysis, were not made accessible through the City’s website until June 5, 2024 (just 6 days before the Planning Commission meeting where the Project was considered).
2 The complex multi-tiered analyses (upon which the
Addendum’s analysis heavily depends) should have been made available and readily accessible to the public for review much earlier in the environmental review and administrative process for the Project. Failing to provide early and convenient access to the first-tier environmental impact analysis when a CEQA addendum is utilized conflicts with CEQA’s informational purposes and 2 See Exh. A - email response from Senior Planner Crystal De Castro re links to EDSP EIRs posted to project website, dated June 5, 2024.
1663
City of Dublin, Mayor, City Council and City Planner July 15, 2024 Follow Up Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum Page 3 undermines meaningful public participation. Staff provided no justification for making the EDSP EIRs available to the public for review so late in the process.

Adding to the challenging task of reviewing the already voluminous Project materials and multi-tiered analysis, the City and Project proponent have subjected stakeholders and the reviewing public to yet another “data dump.” Taken together, the staff report and the 15 referenced attachments released only a few days ago comprise 1,203 pages. Much of the information provided in this material is new information (not included in the I/S and its appendices).
3 Instead of being provided only a few days before the City Council meeting, this new detailed information contained in the attachments to the staff reports should have been provided to the public for review much sooner in the environmental review process. Taken together, the unavailability of the EDSP EIRs and the late release of voluminous information in the staff report and its attachments suggests an effort to prevent rather than foster meaningful public participation. To respond to KOA’s legitimate concerns and enable meaningful public participation in the process, the City Council should require major revisions to the Project as designed, order a revised environmental impact analysis, and postpone its consideration of the Project.

I. DISCUSSION
A. Substantial Project Changes Warrant a Stand-Alone EIR As stated in comments to the Planning Commission, an Addendum is the wrong form of CEQA document for analyzing the intense land use changes proposed for this Project. Addenda to EIRs are intended for “minor” changes to projects where adequate environmental review has already occurred, not for situations where, as here, major changes are proposed and substantial evidence supports the conclusion that these changes will cause unanalyzed significant impacts. 4 Contrary to assertions in Attachments 13 and 14 to the staff report, development of the Project site as currently proposed was not evaluated previously in the EDSP EIRs. The 1993 EIR and the 2002 SEIR were program-level environmental review documents that generally analyzed the impacts of developing a wide geographic area; these analyses did not purport to analyze development of the Project site at any level of detail. The 2005 Fallon Village SEIR, which more specifically analyzed the impacts of developing the Project area, analyzed a project that differs substantially to the pattern of development that has since materialized. The Project, as proposed, includes additional changes to the previously analyzed pattern and intensity of development.
3 New information and analyses is provided in the staff report and Attachments 1 through 8 and Attachments 13 through 15.
4 See CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15162, 15164; see also Ventura Foothill Neighbors v. County of Ventura (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 429, 435-436 [change in building height from 75 to 90 feet was substantial change requiring major EIR revisions].).
1664
City of Dublin, Mayor, City Council and City Planner July 15, 2024 Follow Up Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum Page 4 The Project includes substantial grading of Parcel 7 that will eliminate existing public views from the Jordan Ranch Square and adjacent streets and will place intensive residential development at a designated protected ridgeline resulting in silhouetted buildings from views from the south (including from I-580, a designated scenic corridor).5 Substantial grading is also proposed for Parcel 8. The developer first disclosed this substantial grading of Parcels 7 and 8 during the Planning Commission meeting on June 11, 2024. There is no evidence in the EDSP EIRs that the City previously considered, analyzed and approved the proposed substantial grading now proposed on Parcels 7 and 8. The proposed near flattening of the parcel and construction of a cul-de-sac along the southern side of Parcel 7 are new components of the proposed development of “Fallon Village” that will result in new unanalyzed and unmitigated impacts.

The analysis provided by the Project applicant’s counsel relies upon the inaccurate assertion that the Project does not represent an increase in residential density and commercial intensity over the amount allowed under the EDSP.6 While the EDSP may allow for a floor area ratio (“FAR”) of up to 0.80, the EDSP EIRs did not analyze the impacts associated with this level of development for the Project area. Rather, the 2002 SEIR and Fallon Village SEIR evaluated a maximum 0.28 FAR for the parcels zoned as GC/CO.
7 Thus, the Project represents a substantial
increase in the commercial use intensity over the amount analyzed in the EDSP EIRs upon which the I/S analysis relies.

The Project also includes other changes not considered in the EDSP EIRs. The I/S and Addendum do not describe all changes. For example, in 2005, Parcel 7 and the area to the north, including Jordan Ranch Square, was within an area designated as “Fallon Village Center” with markedly different land use and development patterns.8 The attachments to the staff report to the City Council describe additional aspects of the Project that were not described in the I/S and analyzed for significant impacts. These recently disclosed Project components with the potential to cause significant impacts include, but are not limited to:
5 Attachment 13 to the staff report to the City Council, a memorandum drafted by City staff and retained consultants (the “Supplemental Analysis”), acknowledges for the first time that “The proposed project would grade the site to provide a level building pad for the proposed residential development at the same elevation as the adjacent neighborhood.” (p. 4.) The I/S conspicuously omits information concerning this critically important aspect of the Project description. See I/S, p. 11.
6 See Attachment 14 to the staff report, letter dated June 20, 2024, p. 3. 7 See 2002 Draft SEIR, Table 2.4-2, Table 3.6-1 [trip generation summary table]; see also 2005 Draft SEIR, p. 14.

Attachment 14 to the staff report inaccurately asserts that the 2005 Fallon Village SEIR evaluated commercial density at 0.80 FAR. (See Letter from counsel for Project proponent, dated June 20, 2024, p. 3, citing Initial Study for Fallon Village project, p. 23 [2005 Draft SEIR .pdf at p. 369].) 8 See 2005 Draft SEIR, pp. 14,
1665
City of Dublin, Mayor, City Council and City Planner July 15, 2024 Follow Up Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum Page 5 • Pocket parks within Parcel 7 and Parcel 8 (nighttime light effects);9 • Weekend construction activities, subject to the discretion of the City Engineer (noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors);
10 • Following the newly proposed substantial grading, installation of temporary fencing around Parcel 7 and Parcel 8 (culminating in undisclosed aesthetic effects, especially in the areas designated as Visually Sensitive Ridgelines (“VSR”));
• Widening of Pandora Way from 32 to 42 feet (construction period noise and air quality impacts);
• Right-of-way acquisition at adjacent property to the north (Jordan Ranch, Tract 8197) (unclear what right-of-way is needed and what impacts could result); • Tract maps for Project design (detailed information concerning Project design not disclosed until Friday, July 12, 2024);
• Parking for access to open space on cul-de-sac located adjacent to Parcel 7 (the proposed curb cuts and plan for parking will obstruct views along the designated VSR);11 and
• Future abandonment of Croak Road south of the future extension of Dublin Boulevard (conflicts with assumptions in the traffic impact analysis concerning the existence of Croak Road).
12 These are not “minor technical changes or additions” for which the use of an EIR addendum is appropriate. Rather, as discussed further below, they are major changes that would cause new significant impacts not comprehensively analyzed in the EDSP EIRs.

Additionally, circumstances have changed substantially since the EDSP EIRs were prepared and certified, and new information concerning the severity of impacts has become available in the intervening years, independently warranting a new EIR for this Project.13 Changed circumstances, including the City’s adoption of CAP 2030, recent enactment of state policies requiring net zero greenhouse gas emissions and encouraging reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMTs), and mounting evidence of climate change impacts already more severe than predicted in 2005 also militate against reliance on a CEQA addendum as the environmental 9 Attachment 4 to staff report, Landscaping Design Guidelines, pp. 5-6. 10 Attachment 5 to staff report, p. 21 [table row #81]. 11 This newly disclosed plan for parking on the cul-de-sac contradicts the assertion in the applicant’s slide presentation to the Planning Commission that views will be maintained through lines of sight between the proposed Project buildings on Parcel 7.
12 Compare Attachment 8 (Development Agreement), p. 16, Section 13.6 with Local Transportation Analysis for Project; see also Attachment 13 to staff report, p. 6 [“alternative routes would be provided via Croak Road to alleviate vehicle traffic through the adjacent residential neighborhood”]. 13 See Public Resources Code, § 21166(b), (c).
1666
City of Dublin, Mayor, City Council and City Planner July 15, 2024 Follow Up Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum Page 6 clearance document for this Project. As the supplemental analyses admits, impacts related to climate change were not analyzed at all in the EDSP EIRs.

Finally, a stand-alone EIR is warranted for this Project because the prior multi-level and disjointed environmental impact analyses, which rely upon complex tiering and incorporation of multiple historical documents by reference, do not satisfy CEQA’s informational purposes.

Because the City adopted statements of overriding considerations in connection with its approval of the EDSP in 1993 and the annexation and Fallon Village approvals in 2002 and 2005, respectively, analysis and disclosure of this Project’s contribution to any recognized unmitigated impacts is especially appropriate to fully inform decisionmakers and the public. For these reasons, a project-level EIR would better inform the City’s decision-makers and facilitate meaningful public participation.

B. Because the Project Will Potentially Cause Unanalyzed and Unmitigated Significant Environmental Impacts, an EIR is Required; the Proposed Addendum is Improper
As stated in comments to the Planning Commission, the I/S and Addendum rely heavily upon the outdated and incomplete analyses presented in the EDSP EIRs. The EDSP EIRs did not analyze several categories of impacts that the Project may cause, or they underestimated those impacts based upon inaccurate assumptions concerning the pattern of future development.

These unanalyzed or inadequately analyzed significant impacts, include, but are not limited to:
1) Impacts to public open space and scenic vistas resulting from large-scale buildings located adjacent to a public park with minimal setbacks and in areas designated as Visually Sensitive Ridgelines;
2) Cumulative traffic impacts caused by the Project when combined with other past, present, and future development projects in the vicinity; 3) Traffic safety hazards on the streets surrounding Jordan Ranch Square (i.e., Twain Harte Rd., Pino Grande Rd., and Pandora Way) created by substantially increasing the number of residences dependent upon small streets for exclusive ingress and egress routes;
4) Air quality impacts associated with recently disclosed but inadequately described substantial grading to level Parcel 7;
5) Health risks associated with Valley Fever present in Project area soils that will be disturbed by grading and other heavy construction activities; and 6) Unanalyzed climate change impacts related to the Project’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.
1667
City of Dublin, Mayor, City Council and City Planner July 15, 2024 Follow Up Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum Page 7 The above project-specific impacts, related to changes in land use patterns and increased development intensity associated with the Project, were not studied in the EDSP EIRs. 14 Accordingly, the City Council should not approve the Project or grant any permits for associated development projects until a project-level EIR is prepared that fully addresses all significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project.

1. The Project, as Designed, Has the Potential to Cause Significant but Unmitigated Aesthetic Impacts
The Project includes medium-high density residential development on Parcel 7 and Parcel 8. As explained previously to the Planning Commission, the massive three-story buildings on Parcel 7, depicted on maps in the I/S, would completely obstruct scenic views from Jordan Ranch Square, Pandora Way, and adjacent neighborhood vantages.15 The supplemental analysis contained in Attachment 13 incudes the assertion that views from Jordan Ranch Park are not protected. This assertion conflicts with adopted City policies that protect those public views.

These policies include those articulated by the City’s Parks and Recreation Department when planning for the park and by City Council when it approved the plan for developing Jordan Ranch Park in December 2022.16 The assertion also conflicts with public view-protecting policies contained in EDSP adopted mitigation measures. This Project as proposed conflicts with those policies because it involves a design that would eliminate the scenic views from Jordan Ranch Park.

The proposed substantial grading of Parcel 7 and Parcel 8 (disclosed for the first time during the Planning Commission meeting on June 11, 2024) will also introduce residential development to areas within the two parcels designated as “Visually Sensitive Ridgelands” identified in the 1993 EDSP EIR, the 2002 SEIR, and the 2005 SEIR.17 This intensive medium-high density development will impact views to the north from I-580 (a scenic corridor).

The I/S and Addendum assume, without evidentiary support, that implementation of previously adopted mitigation measures would completely avoid the potential impacts to scenic 14 Several of the above impacts described in the above non-exhaustive list are addressed in our prior comment letter to the Planning Commission. The staff report to the Planning Commission did not address any of our prior comments, even though the comments were submitted a full week in advance of the meeting on June 11, 2024. 15 See Sachin Bhandari comments regarding Project, dated June 4, 2024, pp. 8-11. 16 See Exh. B - Jordan Ranch Square Community Meeting Presentation June 2022; see also Exh. C - 2022 Design Drawing for Jordan Ranch Square; see also Staff Report to City Council and referenced meeting materials for Item

8.1 Approval of Conceptual Plan for Jordan Ranch Neighborhood Square, Dec. 6, 2022, Regular Meeting. 17 Compare Exh. D - Scenic Ridgeland Resources Maps from Fallon Village DSEIR 2005 and Exh. E - Map of Visually Sensitive Ridgelands from 1993 EIR with Exh. F - GHPacVest 240611 PC Hearing Presentation Grading Slides.

Attachment 13 to the staff report, at page 4, falsely asserts “the areas designated for Visually Sensitive Ridgelands – Restricted Development would be preserved as Natural Community Park, consistent with the requirements of the EDSP.” Development proposed for Parcel 7 and Parcel 8 will encroach into areas within those parcels designated as VSR and therefore requiring restricted development. (See ibid.) 1668
City of Dublin, Mayor, City Council and City Planner July 15, 2024 Follow Up Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum Page 8 resources associated with changes to the development patterns and intensity described in the EDSP EIRs.18 For example, the I/S does not explain how the proposed (and newly disclosed) near flat grading of Parcel 7 and development of large, 3-story, residential buildings to the southwest edge of that parcel could possibly be mitigated through implementation of MM 3.8/5.1 [“Structures shall not be located where they would obstruct scenic views or appear to extend above an identified scenic ridgetop (i.e., silhouetted) when viewed from designated scenic routes”].19 As explained above, the southwest corner of Parcel 7 is designated VSR and is therefore subject to development restrictions. The I/S fails to explain how (or whether) the applicable restrictions apply to the Project.

According to the Dublin General Plan:

Visually sensitive ridgelands and biologically sensitive habitat areas have been protected and incorporated into an open space system that preserves key elements of the areas physical character. Higher development intensities have been concentrated in the more level areas of the valley with lower densities nestled in the hill areas. Hillside grading has been carefully regulated to discourage major alteration of distinctive hill forms.
20 Because the proposed substantial grading on Parcel 7, combined with dense residential development of the entire parcel, conflicts with General Plan policies protecting these areas, the City Council lacks substantial evidence to support the required determination that “Proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure the ridgelands.”21 Additionally, as described in comments to the Planning Commission, the proposed building density and intensity on Parcel 7 does not appear to be consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requirement to “[s]ite buildings on the downslope side of streets, where feasible, so the main mass of the building is below street level, allowing views over roofs from the street (see Figure 7.31).”22 Attachment 13 to the staff report to the Council includes an 18 See I/S, p. 22.
19 The I/S also does not address the apparent inconsistencies and lack of compliance with MM 3.8/1.0, MM

3.8/7.0, and MM 3.8/8.1, among other adopted mitigation measures that apply to developments within the EDSP area.
20 General Plan, p. 1-3, available at: https://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/36592/Complete-General-PlanUpdated-2-5-24-. 21 Id. at p. 2-9. Attachment 13 to the staff report attempts to address the unanalyzed aesthetic impacts to areas within Parcel 7 and Parcel 8 by referencing a document entitled Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. This document was not referenced or utilized in the I/S and does not appear to be available online.

Even if this document were referenced and available, such vague references to information outside the environmental review documents does not satisfy CEQA’s requirements and cannot cure the deficient analysis in the environmental review document. (See Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 443.)
22 EDSP, p. 144.
1669
City of Dublin, Mayor, City Council and City Planner July 15, 2024 Follow Up Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum Page 9 explanation concerning the feasibility of this measure, stating that the applicant considers it infeasible to retain the downslope on Parcel 7 and construct the new buildings on this downslope. This explanation is not supported by facts or expert opinion supported by facts and therefore does not constitute substantial evidence.

The I/S acknowledges that the Project increases development intensity over that analyzed in the EDSP EIRs but assumes, without substantiation, that the above mitigation measures (and others) will be effectively implemented to avoid all potentially significant impacts.23 However, this unsupported assumption is insufficient to assure the public and decision-makers that the impacts to scenic vistas will be completely avoided or minimized to the extent feasible, as required. On the contrary, the adopted mitigation measures for development within the EDSP support the conclusion that the proposed substantial grading of Parcels 7 and 8 is inconsistent with City policies.24
The I/S also relies upon generalized statements with no substantiation to conclude that changes to land use development authorizations associated with the Project would not cause any significant aesthetic impacts.25 To satisfy the CEQA’s requirements, the analysis must be revised to specifically describe the changes in building density and development intensity that the Project would entail, describe the practical implications of these changes (i.e., how would the shape and pattern of development change) and address the impacts associated with those changes. For example, the impact analysis must address any physical changes to the proposed development associated with the Project’s substantial additional commercial use square footage that may result in impacts to viewsheds and additional light and glare impacts.

2. The Project Will Cause Undisclosed and Unmitigated Air Quality Impacts The EDSP EIRs identified construction-period impacts to air quality as significant and unavoidable. Despite this Project’s contributions to those impacts, the I/S and Addendum do not explain how mitigation measures would completely avoid significant air quality impacts. The recently revealed substantial grading of Parcel 7 and Parcel 8 is inconsistent with the EDSP EIRs description of development in the Fallon Village area. This additional grading has the potential to cause impacts beyond those previously disclosed and analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. 23 The I/S also relies upon as yet undeveloped “guidelines” to “further mitigate the visual impact of the building heights and massing.” (I/S, p. 23.) Because these guidelines have not been developed and incorporated into the Project, this approach constitutes improper deferral of analysis and mitigation. 24 See Sachin Bhandari comments to City Council regarding Project, dated July 15, 2024, pp. 8-11, 14-21. 25 For example, the I/S explains that “[b]ecause the general type and massing of the proposed buildings would not be significantly different than those considered in the EDSP EIRs, the difference in density would not substantially increase the severity of this previously identified impact.” (I/S. p. 23.) This statement does not address the extensive grading proposed for Parcel 7 that would substantially increase the height of the three-story mediumhigh density residential buildings proposed for this area. The I/S does not disclose the amount of proposed grading.

Instead, limited information concerning site grading revealed by the Project proponent (through a series of slides) during the Planning Commission meeting. See Exh. D.
1670
City of Dublin, Mayor, City Council and City Planner July 15, 2024 Follow Up Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum Page 10 The I/S fails to provide all information necessary to adequately describe the Project and support its conclusions regarding the Project’s air quality impacts. Missing from the I/S are, for example:
• A construction schedule specifying the duration and potential overlap of each construction phase (e.g., clearing, grading, paving), the number of equipment on site for each construction phase, the number of construction workers for each phase, etc.;
• A description of the total volume of soils that will be disturbed and moved for Project grading;26 and
• Modeling files supporting the results of the health risk assessment presented in the I/S, Table F.

Project construction would result in engine exhaust emissions generated by on-site construction equipment, haul trucks, and construction worker commuter vehicles. The I/S finds that air quality impacts associated with Project construction-related engine exhaust emissions would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. This conclusion is not supported by the evidence provided in the I/S.

3. Project Construction Will Cause Undisclosed and Unmitigated Noise Impacts to Neighboring Residents.

The analysis of noise impacts relies upon an erroneous approach that results in exaggerated noise attenuation: “The closest sensitive receptors to the project site include a residence located approximately 200 feet north of Parcel 7 of the project site, measured from the center of the parcel, resulting in short-term noise levels of approximately 74 dBA Leq at the closest residence.”27 To accurately assess the noise levels that will impact sensitive receptors, the analysis must be revised to estimate noise levels that will be generated during construction of buildings at the nearest edge of Parcels 7 and 8, using the distances between those buildings and any nearby sensitive receptors.

The I/S also does not disclose that construction work on Saturdays may be allowed, subject to the discretion of City Engineer. Instead, this information is disclosed for the first time in a reference buried in Attachment 5. Weekend construction noise has already been a problem for the members of KOA.28 To avoid noise impacts to these residents, noise-generating construction on weekends should be prohibited. If not prohibited, then such construction 26 The I/S states that “[c]ut and fill from project grading would be balanced on-site” but it does not disclose the source or volume of soils that will be used to render Parcel 7 completely flat. The depiction of grading activities presented in Exhibit D strongly suggests that importing soils will be necessary to fill sloped areas. 27 I/S, p. 131.
28 See Sachin Bhandari comments to City Council regarding Project, dated July 15, 2024, p. 3. 1671
City of Dublin, Mayor, City Council and City Planner July 15, 2024 Follow Up Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum Page 11 activities should be restricted and mitigated to avoid/minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. The mitigation measures for weekend construction noise impacts must be enforceable and include performance standards. This is not an impact that should be left to the sole unguided discretion of the City Engineer.

4. The I/S Failed to Analyze the Susceptibility of Buildings Located on Parcel 7 to Damage Caused by Earthquakes.

The recently disclosed substantial grading on Parcel 7 and Parcel 8 could have the undesirable effect of exposing future Project residents to substantial risk due to substantial ground shaking and related structural damage and the possibility of liquefaction of the underlying fill material in the event of an earthquake. 29 The I/S acknowledges that
The nearest active fault to the project site is the Mount Diablo Thrust, which is located approximately two miles from the site. This fault is considered capable of a moment magnitude earthquake of 6.7. Other active faults in the vicinity of the project site include the Hayward-Rodgers Creek, San Andreas, and Greenville faults, which are all considered active faults. The project site is not located within a State-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. 30 The I/S omits a reference to the Calaveras fault which is an active fault located only 4.8 miles from the site, capable of generating a magnitude 7.0 earthquake, and thus capable of producing significant ground shaking at the site.
31 The I/S refers to and relies upon the 2017
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration (“PGE”) to conclude that Project grading with implementation of mitigation measures would not cause any significant impacts with respect to soil stability.
32 However, the authors of the PGE did not know the extent of fill material that would be utilized for Project development.33 The soils on Parcels 7 and 8 are comprised of 29 See USGS, Liquifaction susceptibility, available at:
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/education/geologicmaps/liquefaction.php#:~:text=Liquefaction%20is%20a%20pheno menon%20where,were%20once%20submerged%20bay%20floor.
30 I/S, p. 89.
31 See Exhibit H to the I/S, Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, p. 5; see also 1993 EDSP EIR, Figure 3.6-B, Regional Fault and Epicenter Map.
32 See I/S, p. 95.
33 Exhibit H to the I/S, Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, p. 8 [“While preliminary subsurface data developed for this report suggests that the alluvial and colluvial clays are relatively stiff and not highly compressible, the extent of planned fills are not known at this time. Large fill thicknesses can be expected to cause settlement of the underlying soil, as well as settlement within the fill itself due to its own weight.”]. 1672
City of Dublin, Mayor, City Council and City Planner July 15, 2024 Follow Up Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum Page 12 artificial fill material, colluvium, and bedrock (Tassajara Green Valley Group).34 The proposed grading on portions of both parcels would be on steep slopes.35 The Fallon Village SEIR cited the Eastern Dublin EIR when reporting that “many of the Project area ridge crests are generally underlain by stable, competent material. However, extensive land sliding and gullying (erosion), as well as some soil creep, occur on the site.”36 The I/S purports to incorporate some (but not all) of the mitigation measures from the 1993 EDSP EIR.
37 Notably, despite the proposed cut and fill grading proposed for Parcels 7 and 8, the I/S does not propose including cut-and-fill slope stability mitigation measures MM 3.6/20 from the 1993 EDSP EIR.
38 MM 3.6/20 requires minimizing grading in hillside areas of the EDSP area.

The 1993 EDSP EIR recognized that “[d]evelopment of the Project site could result in permanent changes in existing physical conditions (landforms), particularly in the hillside areas, particularly if substantial grading occurs.”39 To address this impact, the Specific Plan EIR proposed, and the City Council adopted, MM 3.6/9.0 which specifies:

While some permanent landform changes are unavoidable with any development, their magnitude can be reduced by developing minimal grading plans that adapt improvements to the natural landforms, thus minimizing required cuts and fills (see MM 3.6/12). Construction of traditional flat building pads in hillside areas requires more grading than construction of partial pads, or developing custom lots.40
The I/S does not describe or incorporate the feasible supplemental mitigation measures adopted in the more recent and more specific 2005 Fallon Village SEIR. 41 Recognizing the area
including and extending from the Project site is vulnerable to earthquake risks, the 2005 Fallon Village SEIR imposed Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-GE0-1 which restricted grading in open space areas to “excavations that remove unstable soils and landslide debris and backfilling excavations with compacted, drained engineer fills.”42 The substantial grading of Parcel 7 and 34 See id., p. 4 and Figure 2.
35 See id., Figure 2.
36 2005 Draft SEIR, p. 128.
37 I/S, p. 94. The I/S refers to MM 3.6/7.0, but this measure requires design level geotechnical investigations to include stability analyses of both natural slopes and engineered cut and fill slopes. 38 See ibid.; see also 1993 EDSP Draft EIR, pp. 3.6-13 – 3.6-14. 39 See 1993 EDSP Draft EIR, p. 3.6-9.
40 Ibid.
41 I/S, p. 94.
42 2005 Draft SEIR, p. 130.
1673
City of Dublin, Mayor, City Council and City Planner July 15, 2024 Follow Up Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum Page 13 the adjacent open space area to construct the cul-de-sac along on the south side of the parcel conflicts with this adopted mitigation measure.

5. The Project’s Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Related to Climate Change Have Not Been Analyzed or Mitigated.

As stated in our previous comments to the Planning Commission, the City must evaluate the Project’s consistency with the City’s adopted Climate Action Plan 2030. The I/S attempts to excuse the lack of analysis concerning climate change by arguing that the issue is not “new” and therefore not subject to environmental review requirements pursuant to CEQA. Attachment 14 to the staff report repeats this technical argument without addressing the merits of the issue.

Not only are the City staff and the developer’s representatives wrong on the law concerning this important subject, but they are also wrong on the policy. The information, requirements, and regulations concerning climate change have improved and broadened in the nearly 20 years since the Fallon Village SEIR was prepared.43 This certainly constitutes new information triggering the need for supplemental environmental review under CEQA.44 Even if the issue of climate change could be disregarded as a legal matter (an assertion KOA emphatically disputes), it should not be disregarded as a matter of policy. Doing so with respect to this Project would demonstrate a callous disregard to a subject of increasing public importance, one that political leaders from the United Nations Secretary General to current and former California Governors agree calls for immediate bold and ambitious action.

C. Project Design Changes Would Avoid or Minimize Unanalyzed Potentially Significant Impacts.

Many of the potentially significant impacts described above could be avoided or minimized if the Project proponent is willing to modify the design in specific ways. These recommended changes to the Project include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Modify access to Parcel 7 so that primary vehicle ingress and egress is from Croak Road and/or Dublin Boulevard;

2. Modify the design for Parcel 7 to reduce the residential intensity and restrict development within the area(s) designated as Visually Sensitive Ridgelands; 43 See, e.g., BAAQMD 2022 CEQA Guidelines, Appendices B and C, available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plansand-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines; see also KOA’s Comments to Planning Commission re Addendum for Project, dated June 4, 2024, pp. 8-10. 44 The circumstances here are distinguishable from those in Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1319, where the Court observed that “the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change was known at the time of the certification of the EIR in November 2002” because here the City is attempting to continue to rely upon the increasingly stale and inadequate EDSP EIRs (wherein the issue of climate change was not analyzed at all).
1674
City of Dublin, Mayor, City Council and City Planner July 15, 2024 Follow Up Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum Page 14

3. Remove or limit large-scale residential development in the area within Parcel 7 adjacent to Pandora Way;

4. Retain, to the maximum extent practicable, the existing slope on Parcel 7;

5. Minimize development and grading for Parcel 8 within the VSR designated area; and

6. Fund sidewalk improvements within Jordan Ranch Square. 45 If the Project applicant agrees to these changes, or a modified design that incorporates these recommendations (or substantially similar design changes), KOA may be willing to withdraw their opposition to the Project.

D. KOA Reiterates Its Request For Notice Concerning Further Environmental Review and Public Hearings Concerning the Project
We note that the staff report to the City Council for this Project was not released to the public until Friday, July 12, 2024, just three (3) business days prior to the City Council meeting were the Project will be considered for approval. By not making the substantial supplemental analysis and detailed Project information available to the public for review until the very last minute, City staff have repeated a pattern that disadvantages concerned stakeholders and unfairly favors development interests.

Please provide the undersigned with notice of all CEQA documentation completed for the Project and all public meetings or hearings concerning the Project. Please also provide such notice to KOA representative Sachin Bhandari at the following email address:
[email protected].

II. CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, we respectfully reiterate KOA’s requests that: (1) the Project not include development intensity or density that exceeds the amount of residential and commercial development allowed under the EDSP (as modified in 2002 and 2005), (2) if the Project is intensified in any non-negligible way over the development levels approved in the EDSP, the City must prepare an EIR or Negative Declaration for the Project, as appropriate, and that must specifically identify the proposed changes to previously approved development, and (3) KOA receives timely notice through the remainder of the environmental review and administrative process.
45 This list, based on information currently available, is not comprehensive. Following further review of the I/S, Addendum, EDSP EIRs and other available information, KOA may recommend additional changes to the Project’s design.
1675
City of Dublin, Mayor, City Council and City Planner July 15, 2024 Follow Up Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum Page 15 Thank you in advance for your anticipated careful consideration of the above follow up comments submitted on behalf of KOA. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the comments and recommendations expressed herein, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Very truly yours,
Jason W. Holder
cc: (via email only)
Client contacts
Attachments:

Exhibit A: Email response from Senior Planner Crystal De Castro re links to EDSP EIRs posted to project website, dated June 5, 2024
Exhibit B: Jordan Ranch Square Community Meeting Presentation June 2022 Exhibit C: 2022 Design Drawing for Jordan Ranch Square
Exhibit D: Scenic Ridgeland Resources Maps from Fallon Village DSEIR 2005 Exhibit E: Map of Visually Sensitive Ridgelands from 1993 EIR Exhibit F: GHPacVest 240611 PC Hearing Presentation Grading Slides 1676
Jason Holder <[email protected]>
Dublin Fallon 580 Project: Comments re Initial Study and Addendum Crystal De Castro <[email protected]> Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 5:44 PM To: Jason Holder <[email protected]>
Cc: Sachin Bhandari <[email protected]>, Neda Zayer <[email protected]> Hi Jason,
Electronic versions of the EDSP EIRs are available on the Development Activity page at: https://dublindevelopment.icitywork.com/ The June 11, 2024 Planning Commission agenda also provides the project staff report, which includes the link to the EDSP EIRs, available at: Planning Commission Agenda.

Thanks,
Crystal De Castro
Senior Planner
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA  94568
(925) 833-6610 |  (925) 833-6628 FAX
[email protected] | www.dublin.ca.gov
Mission Statement: The City of Dublin promotes and supports a high quality of life, ensures a safe and secure environment, fosters new opportunities, provides equity across all programs, and champion a culture of diversity and inclusion.

From: Jason Holder <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 4:48 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Crystal De Castro <[email protected]>
Cc: Sachin Bhandari <[email protected]>
Subject: Dublin Fallon 580 Project: Comments re Initial Study and Addendum 7/9/24, 8:37 PM Holder Law Group Mail - Dublin Fallon 580 Project: Comments re Initial Study and Addendum https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=52d2103300&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1801070501298982329&dsqt=1&simpl=msg-f:1801070501… 1/2 Exhibit A
1677
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good afternoon,
Please find the attached comments concerning the above-referenced project, submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission on behalf of Kingswood Owners Association. The comments are submitted in anticipation of Planning Commission consideration of the Project at its next meeting on June 11, 2024.

Sincerely,
-Jason
--
Jason W. Holder
Holder Law Group
Important: This electronic mail message, including any attached files, is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer; it is confidential and it may contain or constitute information protected by the attorney-client and/or the attorney work-product privileges. If the person actually receiving this message, or any other reader of this message, is not the named recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, you are not authorized to retain, read, copy or disseminate this communication or any part of it. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify Holder Law Group at (510) 338-3759. Thank you
7/9/24, 8:37 PM Holder Law Group Mail - Dublin Fallon 580 Project: Comments re Initial Study and Addendum https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=52d2103300&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1801070501298982329&dsqt=1&simpl=msg-f:1801070501… 2/2 1678

NEIGHBORHOOD
JORDAN
RANCH
SQUARE

EXISTING CONDITIONS
1 2 3
4 1
2 4
3 Exhibit B
1679

NEIGHBORHOOD
JORDAN
RANCH
SQUARE

SITE ANALYSIS

PROJECT
SITE
VIEWS
*
*
* *
*
*
LEGEND

PEDESTRIAN PATH OF TRAVEL

VEHICULAR PATH OF TRAVEL

PARKING

LIGHT POLES

GREENSPACE

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
*
1680
NATURE*

PLAYGROUND
* FOREST WITH

NATIVE UNDER STORY
* POLLINATOR
GARDEN
*FITNESS STATION BIKE RACKS*
*BIKE RACKS
*FITNESS STATION
*FITNESS STATION
* HILLY SLIDE * AMPHITHEATER
* SHADE CANOPY
GROVE
* PICNIC AREA
* ENTRY COURT
*RESERVABLE COVERED
PICNIC AREA w/ BBQ MULTI USE

SPORTS COURT
FLEX LAWN*

PANDORA WAY

CENTRAL PARKWAY

PINO GRANDE ROAD

T W A I N H A R T E R O A D
A
A
B
C
C
B
0 10' 20'
1" = 20' N

NEIGHBORHOOD
JORDAN
RANCH
SQUARE

COMMUNITY INPUT

FOREST PARK - NEIGHBORHOOD UNDER THE TREES

NATURE PLAYGROUND - EXPLORING THE FOREST FLOOR

DUBLIN BEACH- FUN UNDER THE SUN

SHADE CANOPY GROVE- DISCOVER PLACES OF RESPITE IN THE FOREST FLEX LAWN FOREST PLAY BIKE PARKING

THE FOREST

NEIGHBORHOOD UNDER THE TREES

KEY FEATURES
- DENSE SHADE CANOPY FOR INFORMAL

ACTIVITIES
- ACTIVATED PARK EDGES FOR PLAY
- FLEX LAWN
DESIGN
• COMMON THEME: THE FOREST DESIGN WAS THE
COMMUNITIES 1ST CHOICE.
• DESIGN TAKEAWAY: PEOPLE SEEMED TO LIKE THE NATURAL

DESIGN OF THIS OPTION AND HOW IT LENT ITSELF TO THE
VALLEY VIEWS.
• DESIGN ACTION: SWA WILL CONTINUE TO DEVELOP

THE FOREST DESIGN CONCEPT AND WILL INCORPORATE
COMMUNITY INPUT.

SPORTS AND FITNESS
• COMMON THEME: THE COMMUNITY NOTED THAT SOME SORT
OF SPORTS COURT AND FITNESS ACTIVITY, WAS IMPORTANT.
• DESIGN TAKEAWAY: A SPORT COURT IS WANTED BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE THE MAIN ELEMENT OF THE PARK.
• DESIGN ACTION: THE SPORTS COURT WILL BE INCLUDED

IN THE PROJECT, AND SWA WILL BEGIN TO LOOK HOW

TO INCORPORATE A MULTI-USE SPORTS COURT AND BE
DEVELOPED INTO THE DESIGN.

PLAYGROUND
• COMMON THEME: A PLAYGROUND BE FOR CHILDREN OF ALL
AGES.
• DESIGN TAKEAWAY: DESIGN A PLAYGROUND FOR ALL AGES

AND INCLUDE PLAYGROUND SHOULD INCLUDE THE ELEMENT
WANTED BY THE COMMUNITY. IT WAS NOTED THAT THERE WERE

A FEW PLAY ELEMENTS IN OTHER DESIGN OPTIONS THAT THE

COMMUNITY WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE IN THE FOREST DESIGN
SCHEME
• DESIGN ACTION: AS THE CONCEPT SCHEME MOVES INTO

SCHEMATIC DESIGN SWA WILL DESIGN A PLAYGROUND THAT
RESPONDS TO THE COMMUNITIES SUGGESTIONS.

BBQ
• COMMON THEME: THERE WERE SEVERAL COMMENT NOTING
THAT MORE BBQ AREAS ARE NEEDED.
• DESIGN TAKEAWAY: ADD BBQ AREAS TO ADDRESS THE WANT.
• DESIGN ACTION: BBQ’S WILL BE ADDED TO EACH OF THE
PICNIC AREAS. THE FINAL LOCATIONS AND QUANTITY OF BBQ’S

WILL BE EVALUATED AND INCLUDED IN THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN
PHASE.

GARDEN
• COMMON THEME: THERE WERE SEVERAL COMMENTS FOR A

POLLINATOR GARDEN (SEVERAL COMMENTS FOR COMMUNITY

GARDEN)
• DESIGN TAKEAWAY: A POLLINATOR GARDEN OR PROPERLY

SELECTED PLANTING PALLET WOULD FIT NICELY INTO THE
FOREST DESIGN CONCEPT. A COMMUNITY GARDEN MAYBE

POSSIBLE, HOWEVER THIS WILL NEED TO BE EVALUATED BY
THE CITY.
• DESIGN ACTION: SWA WILL BEGIN TO SELECT PLANT

MATERIALS IN THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE, AND WILL
INCLUDE POLLINATOR PLANTING IN THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN.

A COMMUNITY GARDEN DOES NOT FIT INTO THE PROGRAM

ELEMENT OR GUIDELINES OF A NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE PARK,
SO THIS ELEMENT WILL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE DESIGN.

FLEX LAWN
• COMMON THEME: FLEX LAWN WAS SEEN AS AN IMPORTANT

ITEM, AND SEVERAL USES WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE

COMMUNITY, SUCH AS SPORTS LIKE VOLLEYBALL, AND
ADDITIONAL PARK SEATING.
• DESIGN TAKEAWAY: THE FLEX LAWN IS IMPORTANT AND WILL
BE INCLUDED IN THE FINAL DESIGN.
• DESIGN ACTION: THE FLEX LAWN WILL BE INCLUDED;

HOWEVER, NO PERMANENT SPORTS ELEMENTS WILL BE
INCLUDED. HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT PREVENT THE

COMMUNITY MEMBER FROM SETTING GAMES AND SPORTS

ON AN AS NEEDED BASES, AND THE LAWN WILL BE DESIGN
TO ACCOMMODATE MULTIPLE USES. BENCH SEATING WILL BE
ADDED TO THE EDGE OF THE LAWN AREA.

VIEWS
• COMMON THEME: PROTECTING VIEWS
• DESIGN TAKEAWAY: THIS WILL BE EVALUATED AND STUDIED

TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO BEST SUIT THE PARK AND THE
COMMUNITY.
• DESIGN ACTION: SWA WILL LOOK ARE REVISING DESIGN
GEOMETRIES TO ACCENTUATE THE VIEWS FROM THE PARK.

SEAT HAS ALSO BEEN PROVIDED ALONG THE LAWN EDGE SO
THAT VIEWS CAN BE PASSIVELY APPRECIATED.

SHADE
• COMMON THEME: SHADE IS IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY
• DESIGN TAKEAWAY: WE WILL HAVE TO STUDY THIS TO MAKE

SURE WE PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF SHADE
ELEMENTS.
• DESIGN ACTION: SWA WILL FURTHER LOOKING INTO ENSURING SHADE IS PROVIDED IN KEY AREAS.

PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING:
• COMMUNITY INPUT PROVIDED IS SWA’S PRELIMINARY
EVALUATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY’S RESPONSES. THE THEMES

IDENTIFIED WERE EVALUATED AND EXTRACTED BY NOTING

COMMENTS THAT APPEARED MULTIPLE TIMES AND ON DIFFERENT
DESIGN OPTIONS.
• WE HAVE NOT INCLUDED COMMENTS THAT ARE NOT FEASIBLE
FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE PARK. THESE COMMENTS

WERE RELATED TO THE REQUEST TO INCLUDE WATER FEATURE,

CERTAIN SPORTS COURT FACILITIES THAT WOULD NOT FIT THE
SITE, AND RESTROOMS FACILITIES.

Attachment 3
319
Exhibit C
1681
~
0 0
N
~
. .J?..Lf .. ?L,/N PLEASAf..'T::::;;>J
SOURCE. MacKay & Somps, 6-30-2005.

CITY OF DUBLIN

FALLON VILLAGE
. ' . '
.-··as: · ------ -~.,- -: Os--,-
,'
: ...... •.'
'• , .. ~

DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
N
l
- - Ridgeline
~ Visually Sensitive Ridgelands:
~ No Development
II Visually Sensitive Ridgelands:

L__.l Restncted Development
~ VSR within OS or RRA Land Use '- '/. designation in current Stage 1 PD but within Low Density Residential
designation in proposed Stage 1 PD
Amendment (21.0±acres).
- VSR within Low Density Residential · Land Use designation in current Stage 1 PD but within OS or RRIA
designation in proposed Stage 1 PD
Amendment (3.2±acres) .
-
' J
I __ ~et:?.r!...EEJ§qt!E!3_ __ _ Zonefune
I
I
' \~Ridgeline
' I
I
Exhibit 4.8.3a

EXISTING

SCENIC RIDGELAND

RESOURCES
o 400 BOO 1600 2400 teet
tl =----=~--~=======-, ....... 1
Area within
designated VSR
affected by
Dublin Fallon
580 Project
Exhibit D
1682
('• ·,
',, ... ,.,, . &~)0'
\,,.-✓·-· 500--\
._,
\ .,\
( ..... ,/
/
',.
r··-----~---~---··
I
I
I
I
■
Gleason Read
.J
Hl80
Boulevard
/
■ I
/
,.,
Visually Sensitive
Ridgelands
Legend
Visually Sensitive Ridgelands
- No Development
Visually Sensitive Ridgelands
- Restricted Development
EASTE_RN, QUBLIN
GPA• SP •·EIR
Wallace Roberts & Todd Figure 3.8 - H
0 600 1200
Feet~
1/4 1/2
Area within designated
VSR affected by Dublin
Fallon 580 Project
1683
' /,
' ' ' ~~ NS ' ............ ...
.. ... tl
-..
'' ' '
---J.-------------------.. - :: ~~ 9~~-- .. ,..

L
OS
SOURCE: MacKay & Somps, 8-9-2005.

CITY OF DUBLIN

FALLON VILLAGE
' • OS • ' ,'
'
.,"'' I/
' ', ... -~· :' NP ,.''
,'
>'
M ,, .. -----~----:
' ' ES : NP c _-
----:-------- l--- _:
' MH

DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GC/C0/1
,-----.\
NP '
N
l
6 u
u
(:J
Ridgeline
Visually Sensitive Ridgelands:

No Development
D Visually Sensitive Ridgelands:

Restricted Development
-
' J
I -- ~eQ·'LEEr~qt!E!2_ __ Zon~Lme -
I
I
' \~ Ridgeline
' I
I
Exhibit 4.8.3b

PROPOSED

SCENIC RIDGELAND

RESOURCES
400 BOO 1600 2400 feet
~--~~--.C====~~------·1
Exhibit E
1684
FALLON 580 GH PACVEST, LLC
LOOKING EAST - GRADING Exhibit F
1685
FALLON 580 GH PACVEST, LLC

LOOKING NE - GRADING
1686
FALLON 580 GH PACVEST, LLC

LOOKING NW - GRADING
1687
FALLON 580 GH PACVEST, LLC

LOOKING WEST - GRADING
1688
FALLON 580 GH PACVEST, LLC

LOOKING WEST (ZOOM) - GRADING
1689

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Agenda Item 7.1
DATE: July 16, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Downtown Dublin Update
Prepared by: Hazel L. Wetherford, Deputy City Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will receive a presentation on updates to the Downtown Dublin efforts, including the ongoing work on the development of the Dublin Commons project, which includes the town square, living options, commercial uses, and the proposed life sciences buildings.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the presentation.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There are no financial impacts associated with receiving the presentation.

DESCRIPTION:

Background
Over the last five years, the City has made significant progress towards realizing the Downtown Dublin Preferred Vision, including taking the following actions:
 October 15, 2019 - the City Council adopted Resolution No. 107-19 which approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and American Realty Advisors (ARA), the primary property owner of the Dublin Place shopping center.  November 5, 2019 - the City Council approved the Downtown Dublin Preferred Vision (DPV) and its three main principles (siting of the town square, a new street grid network, and the downtown character).
 December 3, 2019 - the City Council adopted Resolution No. 126-19 which amended the General Plan and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) to allow an increase in the 1690

allowable commercial floor area ratio (FAR) in the Transit Oriented and Retail Districts, combined new residential dwelling unit allocation into one pool for all three districts, and amended the parking standards for the Village Parkway and Transit Oriented Districts.  July 21, 2020 - the City Council adopted Resolution No. 79-20 which amended the DDSP to create a new street grid in the Retail District, site a town square, combine the remaining allocation of new non-residential square footage from the Transit Oriented and Retail Districts into one pool, allow lodging in the Retail District, and update the design guidelines for the Core Area of the Retail District.
 November 17, 2020 - the City Council adopted Resolution No. 121-20 which adopted the Downtown Dublin Streetscape Plan and amended the City of Dublin Streetscape Master Plan.
 April 6, 2021 - the City Council adopted Resolution No. 26-21 which approved a First Amendment to the MOU with ARA, providing a 12-month term extension.  February 5, 2022 - the City Council received an update on Downtown Dublin as part of the Strategic Planning retreat.
 April 5, 2022 - the City Council adopted Resolution No. 30-22 which approved a Second Amendment to the MOU with ARA, providing a 14-month term extension.  November 6, 2023 - the City Council received a presentation from Staff, the City’s consultant Urban Field Studio, and ARA on the proposed implementation of the DPV. After the presentation, the City Council provided direction to Staff on the DDSP Amendments required to support the DPV.
 December 19, 2023 - the City Council adopted Resolution No. 134-23 amending the General Plan and DDSP to further implement the Downtown DPV. The amendments consisted 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.

Upon adoption of the DDSP amendments, ARA and Hines submitted a Planning Application for a Site Development Review Permit, including a Vesting Tentative Tract Map and a Development Agreement for the Downtown DPV. As part of this process, the existing Dublin Place shopping center is being rebranded as Dublin Commons.

ARA and Hines have also submitted a Planning Application for a Site Development Review Permit for the northerly corner of the shopping center, located at the intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road. This application includes the demolition of two existing commercial buildings and the construction of a new multi-tenant commercial building.

Redevelopment of the northern corner will facilitate the relocation of current tenants into new 1691

spaces, enabling the demolition of the southern portion of the shopping center and paving the way for the Dublin Commons Project.

As Staff has shared in previous presentations, the City has partnered with ARA to bring the City’s Downtown DPV to fruition. The City approached ARA with the opportunity for a public-private partnership to deliver a project that neither the City nor the property owner could accomplish alone. Based on this partnership, ARA has made significant commitments exceeding $90 million, which include:
 Acquiring 7300 Amador Plaza Road parcel
 Acquiring 7050 Amador Plaza Road parcel
 Buying out the Hobby Lobby lease
 Halting redevelopment of 7505 Dublin Boulevard (the former Coco’s site)  Ceasing the leasing of retail spaces
 Paying off the property loan
 Negotiating a relocation agreement with PetSmart
 Hiring a Development Manager (Hines)
 Hiring an Architecture, Design, and Planning Firm (Gensler)  Securing contracts for the Burlington parcels
Update
In support of the Downtown DPV, Staff has been working on the deal terms for the Development Agreement and the City’s commitment to financially supporting the public improvements required for the Dublin Commons Project. These improvements include but are not limited to the following:
 Town square park
 Construction of public streets
 Modifications of intersections
 Improvements identified in the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee program  Bicycle and pedestrian improvements
 Public parking garage (see below)
 Public art and gateway signage
In addition to these public improvements, the City will also support utility relocation, business relocation, sales tax sharing, property tax sharing, and commercial façade improvements. These initiatives align with Strategy 1B of the City Council’s Strategic Plan and will directly contribute to physical changes in the area. Staff will present the Development Agreement deal terms, including the items outlined, at a future City Council meeting.

Of note among the deal terms being negotiated is the public parking garage, the cornerstone of the City’s investment in the infrastructure of this new Downtown area. Based on the City’s evaluation of the overall parking need, the garage will need to include approximately 1,100 parking stalls.

These stalls will provide the needed market-based parking for the future life science buildings and capacity for daytime use, but also for more intense use during the evenings and weekends. It should be noted that the future parking garage will not be necessary until the life science buildings 1692

are constructed.

The parking garage is currently estimated to cost more than $75 million, and Staff is exploring ways for the City to fund its construction. The General Fund Downtown Public Improvements Reserve has a current balance of $25.8 million, and Staff plans to recommend the continued allocation of annual surpluses and other lump-sum funding to this reserve over the next several years to either fully fund the garage or be positioned for a manageable debt issuance for a portion of the cost. It is important to highlight that Downtown Dublin, when completed, is expected to bring in more than $4 million in new revenue to the City, which is an important factor in considering the City’s ability to sustain long-term debt service payments for the garage. Staff is working with its consultants on a variety of financing options and will bring this issue back to the City Council at a future meeting.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

Strategy 1: Economic Development, Small Business Support, and Downtown Dublin Objective B: Work with ARA and Hines on the development of the Dublin Commons project, including associated public improvements, relocation of tenants, development agreement and appropriate incentives to effectuate physical changes to the area, as well as support for small businesses.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The City Council Agenda was posted.

ATTACHMENTS:

None.
1693
Downtown Dublin Update
July 16, 2024
1694
Background
• 10-15-2019 MOU with American Realty Advisors
• 11-5-2019 Downtown Preferred Vision Approved
• 12-3-2019 DDSP Amendments
• 7-21-2020 DDSP Amendments
1695
Background, 2
• 11-17-2020 Downtown Dublin Streetscape Plan
Adoption
• 4-6-2021 First Amendment to MOU
• 2-5-2022 Downtown Dublin Update
• 4-5-2022 Second Amendment to MOU
1696
Background, 3
• 5-15-2023 Planning Application (Dublin Plaza
North)
• 11-6-2023 Downtown Dublin Update
• 12-19-2023 DDSP Amendments
• 5-17-2024 Planning Application (Dublin
Commons)
1697
Property Owner’s Commitment
• Acquiring 7300 Amador Plaza Rd parcel
• Acquiring 7050 Amador Plaza Rd parcel
• Buying out the Hobby Lobby lease
• Halting the redevelopment of 7505 Dublin Blvd
• Ceasing the leasing of retail spaces
• Paying off the property loan
1698
Property Owner’s Commitment, 2
• Negotiating a relocation agreement with
PetSmart
• Hiring a Development Manager (Hines)
• Hiring an Architecture, Design, and Planning Firm
(Gensler)
• Securing contracts for the Burlington parcels
1699
City’s Commitment
City’s commitment towards public improvements
include:
• Town square park
• Construction of public streets
• Modifications of intersections
• Improvements identified in the Western Dublin
Transportation Impact Fee program
1700
City’s Commitment, 2
• Bicycle and pedestrian improvements
• Public parking garage
• Public art and gateway signage
1701
City’s Commitment, 3
In addition, the City would also be supportive of:
• Utility relocation
• Business relocation
• Sales tax sharing
• Property tax sharing
• Commercial façade improvements
1702
Public Parking Garage
• Approximately 1,100 parking stalls
• Market-based parking for employees
• Intense parking uses in evenings and weekends
• Estimated to be built with second Life Science
building
1703
Public Parking Garage,2
• Estimated cost: $75M
• Downtown Public Improvements Reserve: $25.8M
• Increasing reserve fund
• Dublin Commons is estimated to generate $4M
• Financing options
1704
Recommendation
• Receive the presentation
• Questions
1705

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Agenda Item 8.1
DATE: July 16, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Consideration of Ballot Measure to Amend the General Plan Regarding the Livbor-Manning LLC Property East of the City Limits
Prepared by: Linda Smith, City Manager and John Bakker, City Attorney EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider placing a measure on the ballot to amend a provision of the Dublin General Plan added by the Open Space Initiative of 2014 in a manner that would allow future approval by the City of limited commercial development on certain property east of the City limits owned by Livbor-Manning LLC. If enacted, the measure would not affect current voter restrictions on new housing development.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt the Resolution Ordering the Submission to the Qualified Electors of the City of Dublin an Ordinance Amending a Provision of the Dublin General Plan That was Added by the Dublin Open Space Initiative of 2014; Calling for an Election to be Consolidated with the Statewide Election to be Held on November 5, 2024; Fixing the Date and Manner of the Election and the Procedure for Voting Therein; and Providing for Notice Therefor.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The actions relating to the placement of the item on the ballot will result in costs associated with the Alameda County Registrar of Voters of approximately $5,000 for the costs of printing the ballot materials in the Voters Information Pamphlet.
1706

DESCRIPTION:

Background
Open Space Initiative of 2014
The Dublin Open Space Initiative of 2014 (OSI) was adopted by the Dublin City Council on June 3, 2014. The stated purpose of the initiative was to protect the open spaces and agriculture of the Doolan and Collier Canyons area (which is the subject of this Staff Report) and the Western Extended Planning Area. Doolan-Collier Canyons is the area enclosed by the Dublin Eastern Urban Limit Line, Interstate 580, the Livermore city boundary, the eastern boundary of Collier Canyon, and the Alameda County-Contra Costa County boundary as shown in Figure 1 below. This area is located outside the City Limits and Sphere of Influence and is not in any of the City’s Planning Areas. The policies, regulations, and development standards adopted as part of the OSI apply only when property in the designated area is annexed into Dublin. Furthermore, these policies, regulations, and development standards can only be repealed or amended by the voters of Dublin.

Much of the Doolan-Collier Canyons area depicted in Figure 1 is also permanently protected as habitat mitigation banks or public agency ownership.

Figure 1: Doolan and Collier Canyons
The OSI established certain development standards including minimum parcel sizes, maximum floor areas, limitations on use, and prohibited development under certain circumstances where it would degrade biological resources, or not have adequate, safe, and sustainable water supply.

Section 2.8.8 of the General Plan identifies permissible uses. Among other uses, the OSI does allow an arterial road (i.e., the Dublin Boulevard extension) for the stated purpose of connecting Dublin Boulevard and North Canyons Parkway (Section 2.8.8.11).

Section 2.8.8 of the General Plan further states the following: “Ten years after June 3, 2014, the City Council shall study commercial development along the extension of Dublin Boulevard to North Canyons Parkway up to 1,200 feet north of interstate Highway 580. The Council should 1707

consider, among other matters, whether commercial development is needed to fund the construction or maintenance of the extension, and if water supply and wastewater service is assured for any development. The Council may put a measure on the ballot to authorize development in the designated area.”
Dublin Boulevard Extension
Dublin Boulevard serves as the primary east-west route in the City and is a key piece of infrastructure, serving motorists as well as the long-term needs of the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian communities. Extending Dublin Boulevard beyond its current terminus at Fallon Road requires significant public investment, currently estimated at more than $150 million. The 1.5- mile extension has been part of the long-term development plan for about 30 years and is being planned by the Alameda County Transportation Commission, in consultation with the City of Dublin and the City of Livermore. An environmental impact report (EIR) was certified and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the Dublin Boulevard extension was approved in August 2019. It is expected that Dublin’s share for the extension will be approximately $124 million, and Livermore’s share will be approximately $27.5 million, based on the roadway length in each jurisdiction and a split of the portion of the roadway in unincorporated Alameda County, known as the Crosby property (owned by Livbor-Manning LLC).

The Dublin Boulevard Extension will result in many key benefits to the community, including improved fire and medical 911 response times, a new public transportation corridor to Livermore, as well as a more convenient northside route for Dublin residents wishing to travel to and from Livermore to places like Las Positas College. In addition to benefits to motorists, the extension will include a robust new bicycle network and safe pedestrian access for recreational community needs.

Within the City’s current boundaries, the Dublin Boulevard extension will open multiple properties for limited commercial development adjacent to the extension. Entitlements are being sought by all but one of the properties currently within the City limits and are part of the City Council’s Fallon East Economic Development Zone. The Fallon East Economic Development Zone is a key component to the City’s economic development efforts and will provide incentives to users in the research and development, life science, advanced manufacturing, automation and robotics, startups, incubators, and clean/green technology industries. The area, once constructed, will primarily be home to future commercial and business park uses, creating more than 14,000 permanent, high-wage jobs. The Fallon East Economic Development Zone requires the completed extension of Dublin Boulevard to ensure its long-term success.

Beyond the City’s current boundary, which the extension crosses to connect to North Canyons Parkway, is the Crosby property. The property includes two parcels of land totaling approximately 180 acres and accounts for a half mile of frontage along the new extension. Road costs associated with this section of the Dublin Boulevard extension are estimated at over $54 million. Currently, it is assumed that Livermore and Dublin would equally share in the cost of improvements, and there is no current funding source for these expenses by either agency. Limited commercial, nonresidential development along the Dublin Boulevard extension could provide an opportunity to offset certain costs associated with the extension, including right of way and mitigation lands, as well as create a sustainable revenue source for the ongoing maintenance of the roadway. It should 1708

be noted that within the City’s boundaries, the City Council authorized a funding plan for its share of costs, totaling nearly $80 million. This plan includes advancing future traffic impact fees from the City’s General Fund reserves and establishing reimbursement payments from benefiting property owners for the City’s upfront costs associated with indirect mitigation of the road.

Open Space Initiative Studies and Analysis
As part of the assessment required by the OSI 10 years after its adoption, the City conducted a market and feasibility analysis with Keyser Marston in 2023. (Attachment 2). In summary, the report indicates that commercial development of the portion of the property directly adjacent to the extension would yield economic benefit to the City. The property would create nearly $1.1 million in annual new revenue to maintain the extension, provide additional funding for the City’s operations, and produce nearly $16 million in one-time construction-related revenues. The analysis suggests that the limited area for development could yield up to 1.2 million square feet of industrial/business park development (based on a FAR of .35), resulting in the creation of more than 2,000 full-time jobs and a total of more than 3,700 jobs (both direct and indirect) throughout the County.

As part of its assessment, the City engaged in discussions with the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) to determine whether water and wastewater service is assured. Given that this first step of asking the voters is not an annexation request, DSRSD was unable to provide the analysis until such a request is made to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). This evaluation would occur after the voters of Dublin decide whether to amend the current boundaries.

Staff requested and received biological resource information from the property owner, Livbor Manning, LLC. This information suggests there is some value to certain species on the property, particularly the area surrounding Cottonwood Creek.

As previously mentioned, a benefit of the Dublin Boulevard extension is improved fire and medical 911 response times. To that end, the City evaluated 911 fire and medical emergency response times to the area. Currently, there are properties in the City of Dublin just west of the Crosby property accessed only from Collier Canyon Road. Emergency response to those areas requires responders to leave Dublin and access the property from the east, typically using the Airway Boulevard-Collier Canyon Rd. Interchange. Staff worked with Alameda County Fire Department staff assigned to Dublin to determine current and future response times from Station 18 in Dublin. (Attachment 3) The current response time to the Crosby property along Collier Canyon Road via Highway 580 is approximately five minutes. Future response times to this property via the Dublin Boulevard extension would be three minutes, creating a time savings of approximately two minutes for fire and medical response.

Ballot Measure
Staff has prepared the attached Resolution (Attachment 1) submitting to the Dublin voters consideration of an amendment to the Dublin General Plan as follows (material deleted from the General Plan is in strikeout type):
1709

“Ten years after June 3, 2014, the City Council shall study commercial development along the extension of Dublin Boulevard to North Canyons Parkway up to 1,200 feet north of lnterstate Highway 580. The Council should consider, among other matters, whether commercial development is needed to fund the construction or maintenance of the extension, and if water supply and wastewater service is assured for any development. The Council may put a measure on the ballot to authorize development in the designated area.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Dublin Open Space Initiative of 2014 and this Section 2.8, the City shall not be prevented from designating for commercial development, consistent with what is permitted on the lands to the immediate west and within the City limits, the portion of the property east of the Dublin Eastern Urban Limit Line up to the Livermore city boundary and along the proposed extension of Dublin Boulevard to North Canyons Parkway, up to 1,200 feet north of Interstate 580 (the “1,200 foot line”). Notwithstanding the geographic limitations in the previous sentence, commercial development may be approved in the portion north of the 1,200 foot line to the west of Cottonwood Creek, so long as the total area of developed land does not exceed 80 acres, thus ensuring that at least 100 acres of the property are preserved as open space.

The City Council in determining whether to give such authorization shall be required to find that the proposed commercial development would contribute substantially to the funding of the construction and/or maintenance of the Dublin Boulevard extension, and that water supply and wastewater service is assured for any development. If such future commercial development is authorized by the Council, the other provisions of the Dublin Open Space Initiative of 2014 and this section 2.8 shall not apply to it.” If approved, the measure would allow the City Council, in the future, to approve development of the site. Future development approvals would require, potentially among other things, environmental review under CEQA, general plan amendment, prezoning/zoning, amendment of the City’s sphere of influence, annexation, and site development review.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City Council’s approval of the resolution is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. The measure, if approved by the Dublin electorate, would merely authorize the City Council to designate, in the future and in its future exercise of discretion, certain open space lands for commercial development as a means of financing the Dublin Boulevard extension project. As such, it will not cause a direct physical change in the environment or cause a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Of course, any such potential future exercise of discretion will be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act’s requirements.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The City Council Agenda was posted.
1710

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution Ordering the Submission to the Qualified Electors of the City of Dublin an Ordinance Amending a Provision of the Dublin General Plan that was added by the Dublin Open Space Initiative of 2014; Calling for an Election to be Consolidated with the Statewide Election to be Held on November 5, 2024; Fixing the Date and Manner of the Election and the Procedure for Voting Therein; and Providing for Notice Therefor 2) Keyser Marston Report – Commercial Development Opportunities and Fiscal and Economic Benefits of Dublin Blvd. Extension – East of City Limits to Doolan Road 3) Fire Response Exhibits
1711
Attachment 1
Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted 07/16/2024 Page 1 of 5 RESOLUTION NO. XX - 24

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING A PROVISION OF THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN THAT WAS ADDED BY THE DUBLIN OPEN SPACE INITIATIVE OF 2014; CALLING FOR AN ELECTION

TO BE CONSOLIDATED WITH THE STATEWIDE ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 5, 2024; FIXING THE DATE AND MANNER OF THE ELECTION AND THE PROCEDURE FOR VOTING THEREIN; AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE THEREFOR
WHEREAS, in 2014, the voters of the City of Dublin adopted the Dublin Open Space Initiative of 2014 (the “OSI”), which among other things limits development to the west of the City’s eastern boundary; and
WHEREAS, despite the limitations, the OSI expressly allowed for the construction of Dublin Boulevard to connect to North Canyons Parkway in Livermore (the “Dublin Boulevard extension”) and required the City Council to study in 2024 the possibility of commercial development along the extension of Dublin Boulevard, including considering whether the development is necessary to fund construction or maintenance of the Dublin Boulevard extension; and WHEREAS, the City conducted market and feasibility analysis as well as analyzing emergency response times; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution proposes a ballot measure that would amend the General Plan to authorize limited commercial development in the area contemplated by the OSI (the “measure”); and
WHEREAS, the Dublin Boulevard extension would improve traffic flow and 911 emergency response times in Eastern Dublin; improve public transit from Dublin to Livermore; and reduce carbon emissions and traffic on I-580; and
WHEREAS, the City has an expressed interest in the environmental protection and preservation of open space on this property, including the preservation of endangered species and the expansion of local wildlife habitats; and
WHEREAS, the Dublin Boulevard extension will create transit, bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to the City of Livermore, thus making all modes of travel more convenient providing Dublin students easier and more direct access to Las Positas College; and WHEREAS, the measure supports additional job creation in the Fallon East Development Zone, focused on bringing life sciences, biotech, research and development, and clean tech businesses in East Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the limited commercial, non-residential development that this measure would authorize Dublin to consider, in the future, would create the necessary funding to maintain the Dublin Boulevard extension, as well as add to Dublin's fiscal stability, improve fire and medical response times, provide more local open spaces, parks, and improve quality of life. 1712
Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted 07/16/2024 Page 2 of 5

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. That pursuant to the requirements of the Elections Code of the State of California and other applicable law, there is called and ordered to be held in the City of Dublin, California, on November 5, 2024, an election at which it shall submit to the qualified voters of the City, the Dublin Traffic Relief, Clean Air/Open Space Preservation Measure, which would adopt an ordinance amending a provision of the Dublin General Plan that was added by the Open Space Initiative of 2014 so as to assist with funding the construction and maintenance of the Dublin Boulevard extension.

Section 2. The ballot question for the proposed ordinance shall be as follows:
“Dublin Traffic Relief, Clean Air/Open Space Preservation Measure. Shall an ordinance be adopted amending the Open Space Initiative of 2014, at no cost to taxpayers, allowing Dublin to accept land donation to connect Dublin Boulevard 1.5 miles east to North Canyons Parkway, including bike lanes, pedestrian access, improved 911 response/ traffic flow, and preserve 100 acres of open space while maintaining voter approved housing development restrictions, in exchange for potential limited commercial development on the adjacent 80 acres?” Section 3. The Ordinance to be considered by the voters pursuant to Section 2 of this Resolution is as set forth in Exhibit A.

Section 4. (a) An election on the measure set forth in Section 2 shall be held in consolidation with the statewide election to be held on November 5, 2024 and shall be held and conducted in the manner prescribed in section 10418 of the Elections Code of the State of California.
(b) The election on the measure set forth in Section 2 shall be held and conducted, the votes canvassed and the returns made, and the results ascertained and determined as provided for herein and within the Elections Code.
(c) The election for the measure set forth in Section 2 shall be held as required by law, and the Alameda County Registrar of Voters is authorized to canvas the returns of that election with respect to the votes cast in the City of Dublin.
(d) At the next regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin occurring after the returns of the election for the measure set forth in Section 2 have been canvassed and the certification of the results provided to the City Council, the City Council shall cause to be entered in its minutes a statement of the results of the election.

Section 5. (a) In accordance with Elections Code sections 9282 and 9283, arguments submitted for or against the measure shall not exceed 300 words in length, and shall be printed upon the same sheet of paper and mailed to each voter with the sample ballot for the election and may be signed by not more than five persons.
(b) In accordance with Elections Code section 9282, the following headings, as appropriate, shall precede the arguments’ wording, but shall not be counted in the 300 word maximum: “Argument Against Measure __” or “Argument In Favor of Measure __” (the blank spaces being filled only with the letter or number, if any, designating the measure). 1713
Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted 07/16/2024 Page 3 of 5 (c) In accordance with Elections Code section 9283, printed arguments submitted to voters in accordance with section 9282 of the Elections Code shall be filed with the City Clerk, accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it or, if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers. Arguments are due in the office of the City Clerk prior to 4:00 p.m., on August 2, 2024.
(d) The City Council may authorize, by motion, a member or members to prepare a draft argument against the measure and to return the draft for consideration and adoption by the City Council at a duly noticed meeting of the City Council. In accordance with Elections Code section 9282, any councilmembers authorized by the City Council to do so may sign the argument against the measure.

Section 6. (a) Pursuant to Elections Code section 9285, when the City Clerk has selected the arguments for and against the measure, that will be printed and distributed to the voters, the City Clerk shall send copies of the argument in favor of the measure to the authors of the argument against, and copies of the argument against to the authors of the argument in favor.

Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument that it seeks to rebut. (b) Rebuttal arguments shall not exceed 250 words and shall not be signed by more than five persons. The persons that sign the rebuttal arguments may be different persons than the persons that signed the direct arguments.
(c) The last day for submission of rebuttal arguments for or against the measure shall be by 4:00 p.m. on August 13, 2024.

Section 7. In accordance with Elections Code section 9280, the City Attorney is directed to file with the City Clerk an impartial analysis of the measure, not to exceed 500 words, showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure.

Section 8. The City of Dublin recognizes that additional costs may be incurred by the County by reason of the measure and agrees to reimburse the County for such costs. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to appropriate the necessary funds to pay for the City's cost of placing the measure on the election ballot.

Section 9. (a) The City Clerk is directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County and the Alameda County Elections Department. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to place the measure on the ballot and to cause a synopsis of the measure attached as Section 10 to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with California Elections Code. A copy of the measure shall be made available to any voter upon request. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to give further additional notice of the measure in the time, form, and manner required by law.
(b) In all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.

Section 10. This Resolution and the measure are not a project under the California 1714
Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted 07/16/2024 Page 4 of 5 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The measure, if approved by the Dublin electorate, would merely authorize the City Council to consider designating, in the future and inthrough its future exercise of discretion, certain open space lands for potential commercial development as a means of financing the Dublin Boulevard Extension project. As such, it will not cause a direct physical change in the environment or cause a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Even if the Resolution and measure considered to be a “project” under CEQA, it would be exempt under the “common sense” exception (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, section 15061(b)(3)) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this action may have a significant effect on the environment, as the Resolution and measure do not propose or permit any new development. Any action by the City that may be taken pursuant to the authority afforded by the measure is speculative and uncertain, will require the future exercise of discretion, and will be subject to CEQA’s requirements.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of July 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk
1715
Exhibit A

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

AMENDING A PROVISION OF THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN THAT WAS ADDED BY THE DUBLIN OPEN SPACE INITIATIVE OF 2014
The People of the City of Dublin do ordain as follows:

Section 1. The last paragraph of Section 2.8.8 of the Dublin General Plan (which was added pursuant to the Dublin Open Space Initiative of 2014) is amended to read as follows (material deleted from the General Plan is in strikeout type):
“Ten years after June 3, 2014, the City Council shall study commercial development along the extension of Dublin Boulevard to North Canyons Parkway up to 1,200 feet north of lnterstate Highway 580. The Council should consider, among other matters, whether commercial development is needed to fund the construction or maintenance of the extension, and if water supply and wastewater service is assured for any development. The Council may put a measure on the ballot to authorize development in the designated area. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Dublin Open Space Initiative of 2014 and this Section 2.8, the City shall not be prevented from designating for commercial development, consistent with what is permitted on the lands to the immediate west and within the City limits, the portion of the property east of the Dublin Eastern Urban Limit Line up to the Livermore city boundary and along the proposed extension of Dublin Boulevard to North Canyons Parkway, up to 1,200 feet north of lnterstate 580 (the “1,200 foot line”). Notwithstanding the geographic limitations in the previous sentence, commercial development may be approved in the portion north of the 1,200 foot line to the west of Cottonwood Creek, so long as the total area of developed land does not exceed 80 acres, thus ensuring that at least 100 acres of the property are preserved as open space. The City Council in determining whether to give such authorization shall be required to find that the proposed commercial development would contribute substantially to the funding of the construction and/or maintenance of the Dublin Boulevard extension, that at least 100 acres of open space will be permanently protected, that the portion of the right of way for Dublin Boulevard on the property was provided by the property owner without cost to the City (either through reimbursement for acquisition costs or dedication), and that water supply and wastewater service is assured for any development. If such future commercial development is authorized by the Council, the other provisions of the Dublin Open Space Initiative of 2014 and this section 2.8 shall not apply to it.
1716
Commercial Development Opportunities and
Fiscal and Economic Benefits
Dublin Blvd. Extension- East of City Limits to
Doolan Road
City of Dublin
Prepared for:

City of Dublin
Prepared by:

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

August 29, 2023
Attachment 2
1717

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
A. Supported Commercial Development 2
B. Fiscal Benefits to the City of Dublin 2
C. Economic Benefits 3
III. FISCAL IMPACTS 5
A. Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues upon Buildout 5 B. One-time Construction-related General Fund Revenues to City of Dublin 6 IV. METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS 8
V. LIMITING CONDITIONS 11
VI. ATTACHMENTS 12
Figure 1. Revenues .................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2. Construction and Permanent Jobs ......................................................................... 4 Figure 3. Employee Income..................................................................................................... 4 Figure 4. Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues upon Buildout................................... 5 Figure 5. Composition of Total Annual General Fund Revenues upon Buildout ................ 6 Figure 6. One-time General Fund Sales/Use Tax Revenues from Construction.................. 6 Figure 7. One-time Initial Property Transfer Tax Revenues .................................................. 7 Figure 8. One-time Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees ................................................... 7 1718

EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Dublin I-580 Corridor Map
Exhibit 2a Total Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in the City of Dublin by Land Use
Exhibit 2b Cumulative Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in the City of Dublin by Land Use
Exhibit 2c Total Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in the City of Dublin by Land Use
Exhibit 3a Average Annual Acreage Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in the City of Dublin by Land Use
Exhibit 3b Land Use Mix Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd in the City of Dublin over the Past 10 Years
Exhibit 3c Average Annual Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in the City of Dublin
Exhibit 4a Total Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore by Land Use
Exhibit 4b Total Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore by Land Use
Exhibit 4c Average Annual Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore by Land Use
Exhibit 4d Average Annual Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore by Land Use
TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Fiscal Revenues to the City of Dublin Table 2: Estimated Mix of Land Uses
Table 3: Estimated Employment
Table 4: Estimated Assessed Value
Table 5: Estimate of Annual Base Property Tax Revenues
Table 6: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Property Transfer Tax Revenues Table 7: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee Revenues Table 8: Estimate of Annual Sales Tax Revenues from Retail Sales and Employee Spending Table 9: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Revenues Table 10: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Business License Registration Fees Table 11: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Franchise Fee Revenues Table 12: Estimate of One-time Sales and Use Tax and Employment Created by Construction Activities Table 13: Estimate of One-time Property Transfer Tax from Sale of Land for Development Table 14: Estimate of Development Impact Fees
Table 15: FY 2022/23 General Fund Budget Summary
Table 16: City of Dublin Demographics, 2022
Table 17: Summary of Assessed Value of Recently Built Warehouse and Distribution Industrial Parks in the East Bay
1719

I. INTRODUCTION
The following report has been prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) for the City of Dublin (the City). The report presents estimates of the commercial development opportunities for 80-acres of land along the proposed extension of Dublin Boulevard, from the City’s eastern boundary to Doolan Road1 and the fiscal and economic benefits that would be generated by the annexation of the property and the supported new development. The findings of this report will be used to evaluate the capacity of fiscal revenues to be generated by the new development to fund the costs of expanding and maintaining Dublin Boulevard. The principal objectives of the analysis are to estimate:
 the quantity of new commercial development and the land use mix of development that could be supported by the 80-acres of developable land along the proposed extension of Dublin Boulevard, from the City’s current eastern boundary to Doolan Road;  the recurring annual tax revenues to the City’s General Fund that could be generated by the supported new commercial development;
 the magnitude of construction-related tax revenues to the City’s General Fund that could be generated by the supported new commercial development; and  the economic benefits that the supported new development could generate to the City of Dublin and to Alameda County.
1 The property is located within the area referenced in the City’s General Plan as the “Doolan-Collier Canyons Area.” A discussion of the area is provided in Chapter 2.8 of the City of Dublin General Plan. 1720

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Supported Commercial Development
The Dublin Boulevard / I-580 corridor is an important center of commercial development in the Tri-Valley region. Approximately 30 million square feet of commercial development has been built along the 12,000 acres that span the corridor, from Pleasanton to Livermore2 . Office and
retail development are the primary land uses along the corridor, representing 37% and 29% of development, respectively, followed by industrial and other uses. Over 50% of the space was built between 1980 and 2000, with the rate of development declining by approximately 50% since 2000.

The portion of the corridor within the city limits of Dublin has captured approximately 23% of the corridor’s development, totaling 7 million square feet of space, with retail being the dominant land use at 45% of development, followed by office at 30%, and industrial space at 15%.

Development in Dublin is newer, relative to the entire corridor, with over 50% of its space being built since 1990. Average annual development in Dublin’s portion of the corridor reached a high point of over 135,000 square feet during the decade from 1990 through 2000, declining to approximately 90,000 square feet per year since 2013.

With the extension of Dublin Boulevard to the property, the subject 80-acre annexation area would be ideally located to capture future industrial park development. Freeway access is not immediately adjacent to the property but is available at Fallon Road to the west and Airway Boulevard to the east. While the annexation area is well-suited for future industrial use, industrial development would require an amendment to the General Plan as well as annexation to the City of Dublin.

Based on the attributes of the site and development patterns, we estimate that the 80-acre area would support approximately 1.2 million square feet of industrial park development.

The time frame for development is difficult to precisely predict. Based on historic trends, the area is likely to be absorbed within the next 20 years.

B. Fiscal Benefits to the City of Dublin
Future development of the 80-acre area will generate significant revenues to the City of Dublin.

It is estimated that development will annually generate approximately $1.1 million of annual tax revenues to the City’s General Fund, with property taxes comprising the largest source of tax revenue.
2 A map of the Dublin Boulevard / I-580 corridor is provided in Exhibit 1, page 13. 1721

It is estimated that development will generate over $16 million of one-time construction-related revenues, which includes $15.6 million of restricted development impact fees and $500,000 of new tax revenue to the General Fund.

Figure 1. Revenues
I. Annual Recurring General Fund Revenues Upon Buildout Revenues Reference
Property Tax Table 5 $861,000
Property Transfer Tax Table 6 $10,000
Property Tax In-lieu of VLF Table 7 $154,000
Sales Tax Table 8 $2,000
Transient Occupancy Tax Table 9 $0
Business Registration Fee Table 10 $2,000
Franchise Fees Table 11 $66,000
Total Annual Revenues Upon Buildout $1,095,000
II. One-time Construction Related Revenues
Sales and Use Tax Generated from Construction
Material Purchases Table 12 $530,000
Initial Prop. Transfer Tax from sale of land Table 13 $33,000 Development Impact Fees and In-lieu fees Table 14 $15,596,000 Total One-time Construction Related Revenues $16,159,000 Figures rounded
C. Economic Benefits

1. Job Generation
KMA has estimated the number of full-time equivalent direct construction jobs and permanent jobs to be created by future development. As shown below, it is estimated that construction will generate 1,350 full-time equivalent construction jobs, assuming a one-year construction period.

The businesses are estimated to create approximately 2,000 full-time equivalent positions. The actual job count will vary, depending on the number of part time versus full-time positions.

The additional jobs throughout Alameda County that will be indirectly supported by the suppliers of construction materials, the on-going purchases of the Project’s businesses, and the on-going expenditures by residents and employees have been estimated using the RIMS II multipliers. As shown below, it is estimated that jobs that are linked to construction period activity will total 894, resulting in a total of 2,244 job years in Alameda County generated by construction activity. Ongoing operation of the businesses are estimated to generate 1,768 jobs through indirect and induced impacts, resulting in a total of 3,732 permanent jobs created throughout the County. 1722

Figure 2. Construction and Permanent Jobs
Construction Jobs
(one-year period) Permanent Jobs
Direct Jobs 1,350 1,964
Indirect and Induced Jobs, Countywide 894 1,768
Total Jobs 2,244 3,732

2. Employee Income
Direct construction employee income is estimated to total $106.7 million. Indirect and induced construction income is estimated to total $56.8 million, yielding total countywide constructionrelated income of $163.5 million. On-going annual direct employee income is estimated to total $242.4 million. Annual employee income throughout the County generated from indirect and induced impacts is estimated to total $180.1 million, yielding total on-going annual employee income of $422.5 million.

Figure 3. Employee Income
Construction Employee
Income
Permanent Job Employee
Income
Direct Employee Income $79,040 (average wage)
$106.7million $242.4 million
Indirect and Induced
Income, Countywide $56.8 million $180.1 million
Total Employee income $163.5 million $422.5 million
1723

III. FISCAL IMPACTS
A. Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues upon Buildout Upon build-out, the annexation area is estimated to generate approximately $1.1 million of annual revenues to the City of Dublin’s General Fund. Property tax revenues are anticipated to be the largest source of General Fund revenues, estimated to total $861,000 per year (or 79% of total revenues). The second largest revenue source is property taxes in-lieu of motor vehicle license fees of $154,000 (or 14% of total revenues).

Both property taxes and property taxes in-lieu of motor vehicle license fees are driven by the assessed valuation of the new development upon buildout. The anticipated future assessed value of new development within the 80-acre annexation area has been calculated based on the assessed values of other recently completed industrial and warehouse parks in the Bay Area.

The total assessed value upon completion is estimated at $375 million. Per a 1992 agreement between Dublin and Alameda County, Dublin will receive 23.98% of the base 1% property tax levy net of ERAF on property within the annexation area.

Some industrial businesses may also generate significant sales and use tax revenues.

However, the amount varies from business to business, and cannot be predicted without knowing the specific businesses that will be occupying the space. A conservative approach has been taken in this analysis and sales/use tax revenues have not been included.

Remaining revenue sources are anticipated to generate $80,000 of annual tax revenue to the City and include: franchise fees, business registration fees, property transfer taxes and sales taxes generated by the purchases of employees. Franchise fee revenues are based on per capita figures derived from revenue data from the City’s 2022/23 adopted budget and the City’s current employment and population base.

Figure 4. Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues upon Buildout Revenue Source
Total Annual
Impacts
Property Tax $861,000
Franchise Fees $66,000
Property Tax In-lieu of VLF $154,000
Other Revenues1 $14,000
Total Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues upon Buildout $1,095,000 See Table 1 for details
1724

Figure 5. Composition of Total Annual General Fund Revenues upon Buildout B. One-time Construction-related General Fund Revenues to City of Dublin Use tax revenues will be generated by construction material purchases. For the purpose of this analysis, it has been assumed that the City of Dublin is designated as the point of sale by the general and sub-contractors for 50% of the materials purchased for construction, and the cost of construction materials is equal to 50% of the total estimated hard cost. Use tax revenues from the purchase of construction materials are estimated to total $530,000.

It is likely that the annexation area will be developed by both existing property owners and new property owners. For purposes of this analysis, it has been assumed that 50% of the developable land is sold for development, which will generate approximately $33,000 of transfer tax revenues to the City.

Development within the annexation area will also generate over $15 million of development impact fees. These fees will be used to fund improvements to mitigate the impacts of new industrial development.

Figure 6. One-time General Fund Sales/Use Tax Revenues from Construction $ Total
Total Hard Cost $213,400,000
Estimated Construction Material Cost as a percentage of Hard Costs 50% Estimated Share with Dublin as a point of Sale 50%
Estimated Construction Material Sales in City of Dublin $53,350,000 Local Sales and Use Tax Rate 1%
Total One-time Sales/Use Tax Revenues During Construction $530,000 See Table 12 for details
79%
6%
14%
1%
Property Tax
Franchise Fees
Property Tax In-lieu of VLF
Other Revenues
1725

Figure 7. One-time Initial Property Transfer Tax Revenues $ Total
Initial Property Transfer Tax from Land Sale Transaction $33,000 Total Initial Property Transfer Tax from the Sale of Land $33,000 See Table 13 for details
Figure 8. One-time Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees
$ Total
Development Impact Fees from Commercial Development $15,596,073 Total One-time Development Impact Fee Revenue $15,596,000 See Table 14.
1726

IV. METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
The fiscal impact analysis provides an order of magnitude estimate of the annual recurring fiscal revenues that new development within the annexation area will generate to the General Fund of the City of Dublin upon buildout, as well as one-time revenues generated during construction.

General Fund revenues are the focus of the fiscal analysis because these revenues are the major sources of discretionary spending for key city services, including police and fire services, public works, and administrative services.

The revenue projections are based on the assumption that the annexation area will be developed with industrial park uses, which is consistent with the land uses permitted within the Eastern Extended Planning Area and the development east of the annexation area that is within the City of Livermore. Industrial park development is not, however, consistent with the land uses that are currently permitted by the City’s General Plan for the subject area. Per Section 2.8 of the City’s General Plan, development would be very limited, with a minimum parcel size of 100 acres and permitted uses are limited to:
 One single family dwelling unit on a parcel;
 Home occupations;
 Agriculture;
 Processing, packaging or storage of agricultural produce or plants;  Low intensity outdoor recreation, such as campgrounds;  Government and public utility uses;
 Small non-profit uses, such as a convalescent home serving no more than 6 patients;  Occasional short-term events related to agriculture, animals or outdoor recreation; and  An arterial road for the purpose of connecting Dublin Blvd. and North Canyons Parkway.

Per the General Plan, the City Council is directed to study in 2024 amending the list of permitted uses along the Dublin Blvd. extension to include commercial development. This fiscal analysis is being prepared to address this requirement of the General Plan.

The analysis is presented in attached tables. The key assumptions of the analysis and methodologies used to calculate the revenue impacts are summarized below.  Industrial Park Land Use – KMA reviewed the land use designations for surrounding properties, development patterns, and freeway access points to evaluate development opportunities for the annexation area. The area to the east of the site within the City of Livermore is developed with industrial park use. The area west of the site is designated for industrial park in the City’s General Plan. The annexation area’s freeway location and market demand for logistics space make it ideally situated to accommodate an industrial park, with a focus on warehouse and distribution space. 1727

 Development Program – The City’s General Plan identifies a maximum floor to area (FAR) ratio for industrial parks at .35. Based on this limit, KMA estimated that the 80- acre annexation area could support approximately 1.2 million square feet of industrial space. See Table 2.
 Existing City of Dublin Demographics – The source for population and household demographic data is ESRI Business Analyst Demographic Estimates for 2022. See Table 16.
 Project Demographics –The number of employees has been estimated based on the General Plan’s density factor of 590 square per employee for industrial parks. KMA has assumed a vacancy level of 5% for this analysis. See Table 3.  Inflation of Revenue and Expenses – The analysis is a static analysis of conditions upon buildout of the Project. Revenues are presented in 2023 dollars.  Continuity of Legal and Institutional Constraints – The revenue structure of the City is based on the adopted FY 2022/23 budget. The projection assumes that the revenue sources will remain constant.
 Rounding – In some cases the calculated summations presented in the tables do not precisely match the summations presented in the body of the report. These differences are due to rounding.
 Service Population – The estimate of Franchise Fees revenues is calculated based on a modified per capita measure known as “Service Population.” This approach combines residents and employees to form a single service population. The Service Population approach weights an employee as 0.50 of a resident, such that two employees are viewed as having the same impact as one resident. See Table 16.  Assessed Property Value – The assessed value of future industrial development has been estimated based on the assessed improvement value of other recently completed industrial buildings. See Table 17.
 City of Dublin General Fund’s Portion of Property Tax Revenues – The City of Dublin and Alameda executed an agreement in 1992 stating that following annexation, the City of Dublin will receive 25.4 % of the base 1% property tax levy generated by property within the annexation area. See Table 5.
 Property Transfer Tax – The City receives $0.55 for every $1,000 of assessed value of properties upon sale. This analysis assumes that the average holding period for industrial properties is 20 years. See Table 6.
1728

 Property Tax In-Lieu of Motor Vehicle License Fees – Property tax in-lieu of VLF has been estimated in accordance with SB 1096, based on data from the California State Controller’s Office and projected assessed values. It is estimated based on $0.41 per $1,000 growth in projected assessed values. See Table 7.  Sales/Use Tax Revenues – The City receives 1% of taxable sales. While some of the industrial businesses within the future industrial park may generate taxable sales, this analysis has taken a conservative approach and does not reflect any sales tax revenue attributable to the sales of the industrial businesses.

Off-site taxable spending by project employees is estimated based on weekly retail spending by suburban workers, as reported in the ICSC report, "Office Worker Retail Spending in a Digital Age" (2012). Figures have been adjusted to 2022 dollars using the national CPI. KMA has assumed that 40% of the taxable employee retail spending is captured on-site, 10% is captured off-site in other retail locations in City of Dublin, while remaining 50% is captured by retail located outside the City. See Table 6.  Business Registration Fees – The current annual renewal rate for business licenses is $28. The total number of businesses upon buildout is estimated based on the assumption that businesses will average 15,000 average square feet per business. See Appendix 11.
 Franchise Fees – The estimate of Franchise Fees is based on the per capita (service population) figure derived from revenue data from the City’s 2022/23 budget. See Appendix 12.
1729

V. LIMITING CONDITIONS

1. The analysis contained in this document is based, in part, on data provided by third parties and published data sources. While Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) believes that the sources consulted are reliable, we cannot guarantee their accuracy.

2. A projection of economic and fiscal impacts is inherently based on judgment. The projections contained herein are based on the best information available at the time that this document was prepared. Actual impacts are likely to vary from the estimates contained in this report.

3. The analysis assumes that the economy will continue to grow at a moderate rate.

4. Revenue projections are based on the best data available when the report was prepared as well as experience with comparable projects. Material changes to costs, development program, or project performance may render the conclusions contained herein invalid.

5. Revenue estimates are based on the assumption that sufficient market support exists for the proposed uses and that the Project will achieve industry standard productivity levels.

6. It is assumed that all applicable laws and governmental regulations in place as of the date of this document will remain unchanged throughout the projection period. In the event that this does not hold true, for example, if any tax rate changes, the analysis would need to be revised.

7. KMA is not liable for the accuracy of any abstracts, excerpts or summaries of this report that are not prepared by KMA.
1730

VI. ATTACHMENTS

EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Dublin I-580 Corridor Map
Exhibit 2a Total Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in the City of Dublin by Land Use
Exhibit 2b Cumulative Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in the City of Dublin by Land Use
Exhibit 2c Total Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in the City of Dublin by Land Use
Exhibit 3a Average Annual Acreage Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in the City of Dublin by Land Use
Exhibit 3b Land Use Mix Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd in the City of Dublin over the Past 10 Years
Exhibit 3c Average Annual Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in the City of Dublin
Exhibit 4a Total Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore by Land Use
Exhibit 4b Total Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore by Land Use
Exhibit 4c Average Annual Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore by Land Use
Exhibit 4d Average Annual Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore by Land Use
TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Fiscal Revenues to the City of Dublin Table 2: Estimated Mix of Land Uses
Table 3: Estimated Employment
Table 4: Estimated Assessed Value
Table 5: Estimate of Annual Base Property Tax Revenues
Table 6: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Property Transfer Tax Revenues Table 7: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee Revenues Table 8: Estimate of Annual Sales Tax Revenues from Retail Sales and Employee Spending Table 9: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Revenues Table 10: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Business License Registration Fees Table 11: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Franchise Fee Revenues Table 12: Estimate of One-time Sales and Use Tax and Employment Created by Construction Activities Table 13: Estimate of One-time Property Transfer Tax from Sale of Land for Development Table 14: Estimate of Development Impact Fees
Table 15: FY 2022/23 General Fund Budget Summary
Table 16: City of Dublin Demographics, 2022
Table 17: Summary of Assessed Value of Recently Built Warehouse and Distribution Industrial Parks in the East Bay
1731
Exhibit 1
Corridor: 18.55 square miles (11,872 acres)
Dublin por�on: 3.94 square miles (2,522 acres)
Pleasanton por�on: 5.13 square miles (3,283 acres)
Livermore por�on: 9.48 square miles (6,067 acres)

1732
Dublin Blvd Extension
Dublin, CA
Dublin Blvd Extension
Dublin, CA
Dublin Blvd Extension
Dublin, CA
Year Built Retail Office Indus. & Flex Other 1 Total
Before 1960 9,216 0 0 0 9,216
1961 - 1980 897,322 429,702 538,373 207,693 2,073,090
1981 - 1990 307,989 343,198 177,327 76,440 904,954
1991 - 2001 710,545 484,093 22,360 285,556 1,502,554
2002 - 2012 787,314 560,479 54,607 1,464 1,403,864
2013 - 2022 411,243 220,000 208,650 63,298 903,191
Total Through '22 3,123,629 2,037,472 1,001,317 634,451 6,796,869 After 2022
Under Construction 9,998 0 0 300,000 309,998
In Planning 409,380 0 0 0 409,380
Total 3,543,007 2,037,472 1,001,317 934,451 7,516,247 1 This category includes the following property types: Land, Hospitality, Sports/Ent, Healthcare and Specialty.

Source: Costar
Exhibit 2b. Cumulative Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in the City of Dublin by Land Use
Exhibit 2a. Total Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in the City of Dublin by Land Use Exhibit 2c. Total Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in the City of Dublin by Land Use 0 500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
1980 1990 2001 2012 2022
Cumulative
Rentable Building Area (Sq. ft)
Years
Cumulative Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in the City of Dublin by Land Use
Retail Office Indus. & Flex Other
Note: "Other" includes the following property types Land, Hospitality, Sports/Ent, Healthcare and Specialty. Source: Costar 0 500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
Before 1960 1961 - 1980 1981 - 1990 1991 - 2001 2002 - 2012 2013 - 2022 Under Construction
In Planning
Total Rentable Building Area (Sq. ft)
Years
Total Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in the City of Dublin by Land Use
Retail Office Indus. & Flex Other
Note: "Other" includes the following property types Land, Hospitality, Sports/Ent, Healthcare and Specialty. Source: Costar

1733
Exhibit 3a. Average Annual Acreage Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in the City of Dublin by Land Use Dublin Blvd Extension
Dublin, CA
Dublin Blvd Extension
Dublin, CA
Dublin Blvd Extension
Dublin, CA
Year Built Retail Office Indus. & Flex Other 1 Total
1961 - 1980 44,866 21,485 26,919 10,385 103,655
1981 - 1990 30,799 34,320 17,733 7,644 90,495
1991 - 2001 64,595 44,008 2,033 25,960 136,596
2002 - 2012 71,574 50,953 4,964 133 127,624
2013 - 2022 41,124 22,000 20,865 6,330 90,319 1
This category includes the following property types: Land, Hospitality, Sports/Ent, Healthcare and Specialty.

Source: Costar
Exhibit 3b. Land Use Mix Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd in the City of Dublin over the Past 10 Years
Exhibit 3c. Average Annual Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in the City of Dublin Retail
46%
Office
24%
Indus. & Flex
23%
Other
7%
Land Use Mix Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in the City of Dublin over the Past 10 Years
Note: "Other" includes the following property types Land, Hospitality, Sports/Ent, Healthcare and Specialty. Source: Costar -

1.00 2.00

3.00 4.00

5.00 6.00

7.00 8.00
1961 - 1980 1981 - 1990 1991 - 2001 2002 - 2012 2013 - 2022 Avg Acreage Developed
Years
Average Annual Acreage Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in the City of Dublin by Land Use
Retail Office Indus. & Flex Other
Note: "Other" includes the following property types Land, Hospitality, Sports/Ent, Healthcare and Specialty. Source: Costar

1734
Dublin Blvd Extension
Dublin, CA
Dublin Blvd Extension
Dublin, CA
Year Built Retail Office Indus. & Flex Other 1 Total
Before 1960 29,616 0 15,052 3,468 48,136
1961 - 1980 1,724,670 515,687 945,786 283,791 3,469,934 1981 - 1990 1,566,394 4,182,284 1,890,549 867,480 8,506,707 1991 - 2001 1,964,841 3,922,571 1,100,426 1,294,947 8,282,785 2002 - 2012 1,811,852 1,405,500 568,105 317,550 4,103,007 2013 - 2022 1,318,458 764,733 208,650 2,516,406 4,808,247 Total Through '22 8,415,831 10,790,775 4,728,568 5,283,642 29,218,816 After 2022
Under Construction 14,819 0 163,500 562,500 740,819
In Planning 409,380 0 231,062 0 640,442
Total 8,840,030 10,790,775 5,123,130 5,846,142 30,600,077 1 This category includes the following property types: Land, Hospitality, Sports/Ent, Healthcare and Specialty.

Source: Costar
Exhibit 4a. Total Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore by Land Use
Exhibit 4b. Total Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore by Land Use
Note: "Other" includes the following property types Land, Hospitality, Sports/Ent, Healthcare and Specialty. Source: Costar 0 1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
9,000,000
Before 1960 1961 - 1980 1981 - 1990 1991 - 2001 2002 - 2012 2013 - 2022 Under Construction
In Planning
Total Rentable Building Area (Sq. ft)
Years
Total Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore by Land Use
Retail Office Indus. & Flex Other

1735
Dublin Blvd Extension
Dublin, CA
Dublin Blvd Extension
Dublin, CA
Year Built Retail Office Indus. & Flex Other 1 Total
1961 - 1980 86,234 25,784 47,289 14,190 173,497
1981 - 1990 156,639 418,228 189,055 86,748 850,671
1991 - 2001 178,622 356,597 100,039 117,722 752,980
2002 - 2012 164,714 127,773 51,646 28,868 373,001
2013 - 2022 131,846 76,473 20,865 251,641 480,825 1
This category includes the following property types: Land, Hospitality, Sports/Ent, Healthcare and Specialty.

Source: Costar
Exhibit 4d. Average Annual Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore by Land Use
Exhibit 4c. Average Annual Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore by Land Use
10,000
60,000
110,000
160,000
210,000
260,000
310,000
360,000
410,000
460,000
1961 - 1980 1981 - 1990 1991 - 2001 2002 - 2012 2013 - 2022 Avg Rentable Building Area (Sq. ft)
Years
Average Annual Rentable Building Area Developed Along Dublin Blvd Corridor in Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore by Land Use
Retail Office Indus. & Flex Other
Note: "O Source: Costar ther" includes the following property types Land, Hospitality, Sports/Ent, Healthcare and Specialty.

1736
Table 1: Summary of Fiscal Revenues to the City of Dublin 6/22/2023
I. Annual Recurring General Fund Revenues Upon Buildout Revenues Reference
Property Tax Table 5 $861,000
Property Transfer Tax Table 6 $10,000
Property Tax In-lieu of VLF Table 7 $154,000
Sales Tax Table 8 $2,000
Transient Occupancy Tax Table 9 $0
Business Registration Fee Table 10 $2,000
Franchise Fees Table 11 $66,000
Total Annual Revenues Upon Buildout $1,095,000
II. One-time Construction Related Revenues
Sales and Use Tax Generated from Construction
Material Purchases Table 12 $530,000
Initial Prop. Transfer Tax from sale of land Table 13 $33,000 Development Impact Fees and In-lieu fees Table 14 $15,596,000 Total One-time Construction Related Revenues $16,159,000 Figures rounded
Fiscal Revenue Analysis of Future Commercial Development Potential Along the Extension of Dublin Boulevard East of Current City Limit to Doolan Road

1737
Table 2: Estimated Mix of Land Uses
6/22/2023
Net Non-Res. Hotel
Estimated Land Use Mix1 Acres2 Sq. Ft. Rooms
Non-Residential 80.0 1,219,680 0
Retail 0
Office 0
Industrial Park 1,219,680
Hotel 0 0
Total 80.0 1,219,680 0
1 Mix is based on the zoning of properties, locational attributes, and historic development trends. 2 Per City staff.

Fiscal Revenue Analysis of Future Commercial Development Potential Along the Extension of Dublin Boulevard East of Current City Limit to Doolan Road

1738
Table 3: Estimated Employment
6/22/2023
Commercial Employment
Non-Residential Vacancy1 5%
Area (SF)/ SF/ Employee or Total
Land Use Rooms Rooms/Emp.2 Employees
Retail 0 SF 350 0
Medical Office 0 SF 260 0
Industrial Park 1,219,680 SF 590 4 1,964
Hotel 0 rooms 0.9 0
Total Employees 1,964
Service Population3 982
1 Industry standard vacancy rate for underwriting new development. 2 KMA estimates.
3 Service Population calculated as resident population plus half of employment. 4 City of Dublin General Plan
Fiscal Revenue Analysis of Future Commercial Development Potential Along the Extension of Dublin Boulevard East of Current City Limit to Doolan Road

1739
Table 4: Estimated Assessed Value
6/22/2023
Total Estimated AV upon buildout $374,563,000
See below for calculations
Assessed Value of Privately Owned Commercial Properties upon Buildout Est. Improvement
Commercial Product Type GBA
Direct Cost
/sf'/room Direct Cost1 Soft Cost2 Value3
Retail 0 $ 375 $0 $0.0 $0
Medical Office 0 $ 800 $0 $0.0 $0
Industrial Park 1,219,680 $ 175 $213,400,000 $42,680,000.0 $256,080,000 Hotel - 393 Keys 0 $ 215,000 $0 $0.0 $0
Total Estimated Improvement Value of Commercial Development $256,080,000 Estimated Land Value Land Area (SF) Value per SF
Land Area 3,484,800 $34 4 $118,483,200
Total Estimated Assessed Value of Commercial Development5 $374,563,000 1 Reflects assumption that hard costs = 80% of improvement value. 2 KMA estimates that a portion of soft costs would be included in assessed values. The portion assumed is equivalent to 20% of hard costs.
3 Values reflect values of newly constructed projects in the market area. 4 Reflects recent land sales for industrial development. 5 Excludes the value of unsecured assessed value in this analysis.

Fiscal Revenue Analysis of Future Commercial Development Potential Along the Extension of Dublin Boulevard East of Current City Limit to Doolan Road

1740
Table 5: Estimate of Annual Base Property Tax Revenues 6/22/2023 Total
Total Estimated Assessed Value $374,563,000
Base 1% Property Tax Levy $3,745,630
Tax Rate Area 26-023
City of Dublin General Fund's portion of Base 1% Property Tax (Post-ERAF)1 22.98% Estimate of Annual Property Tax Revenues $861,000
Fiscal Revenue Analysis of Future Commercial Development Potential Along the Extension of Dublin Boulevard East of Current City Limit to Doolan Road
1 Property tax share is in accordance with 1992 agreement between the City of Dublin and Alameda County. Rate before ERAF shift is 25.4%.

1741
Table 6: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Property Transfer Tax Revenues 6/22/2023
Transfer Tax Rate per $1,000 of Assessed Value1 $0.55
Holding Period Assumptions
Commercial 20 years
Est. Assessed Property
Land Use Value Transfer Tax
Commercial $374,563,000 $10,300
Total $375,000,000 $10,000
Estimate of Annual City Property Transfer Tax Revenues $10,000 Note: Figures rounded
Fiscal Revenue Analysis of Future Commercial Development Potential Along the Extension of Dublin Boulevard East of Current City Limit to Doolan Road

1742
6/22/2023
2004-05 Vehicle License Fee Adjusted Amount1,2 $2,278,846 2004-05 Assessed Valuation1,2 $5,553,452,954
VLF per $1,000 in AV Growth $0.41
Estimated Assessed Value Upon Buildout $374,563,000
Estimate of Annual Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF Revenues $154,000 Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s
1 As per SB 1096, growth of property tax in lieu of VLF is proportional to growth in AV since 2004/05. 2 VLF distribution in 2004/05 per the California State Controller's Office.

Fiscal Revenue Analysis of Future Commercial Development Potential Along the Extension of Dublin Boulevard East of Current City Limit to Doolan Road Table 7: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee Revenues

1743
Table 8: Estimate of Annual Sales Tax Revenues from Retail Sales and Employee Spending 6/22/2023 City of Dublin's share of sales tax of total taxable Sales1 1.00% Sales Tax from Retail Shops and Restaurants
Estimated Taxable Retail Sales per Square Foot2 $430
Total Retail Square Feet 0
Estimated Total Taxable Retail Sales $0
Assumed % of Sales that are Net New to City 90%
Estimated Sales Tax from Retail $0
Sales Tax from Off-Site Employee Spending
Weekly Employee Spending on Retail3 $17
Weeks at Work per Year 50
Average Annual Retail Spending per Employee $827
City of Dublin (off-site) Capture Rate4 10%
Onsite Capture Rate4 40%
Employee Spending Captured Outside City of Dublin7 50%
100%
Annual Income Spent on off-site Retail Sales in Dublin per Employee $83 New Employment 1,964
Estimated Off-site Taxable Sales from Employee Spending $162,000 Estimated Sales Tax from Off-site Employee Spending $1,620 Estimate of Annual Sales Tax Revenues from Retail Sales and Employee Spending $2,000 Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s.
1 Source: Dublin Municipal Code
2 This is based on average per square foot taxable sales generated by Persimmon Place in Dublin (includes vacancy). 3 Based on weekly employee restaurant spending in the vicinity of the workplace, as reported in the ICSC report, "Office Worker Retail Spending in a Digital Age" (2012), for suburban workers, assuming 50 weeks at work per year.

Figures adjusted to $2023 using national CPI.
4 KMA has assumed that 40% of the taxable employee retail spending is captured on-site, 10% is captured off-site in other retail locations in City of Dublin, while remaining 50% is captured by retail located outside the City.

Fiscal Revenue Analysis of Future Commercial Development Potential Along the Extension of Dublin Boulevard East of Current City Limit to Doolan Road

1744
6/22/2023
Upscale Select Service Hotels
Estimated Number of Rooms (Keys) 0
Annual Room Nights 0
Average Daily Rate (ADR in $2023)1 $184
Occupancy upon Stablization 75%
Hotel Revenue Generated $0
TOT
Revenues
Total Hotel Revenue Generated $0
City of Dublin TOT Rate2 8%
Estimate of Annual Transient Occupancy Tax Revenues $0
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s
2 Source: Dublin Municipal Code (section 3.16.030).
1 Rate reflects current average daily rate of newer hotels in the East Bay.

Fiscal Revenue Analysis of Future Commercial Development Potential Along the Extension of Dublin Boulevard East of Current City Limit to Doolan Road Table 9: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Revenues

1745
Table 10: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Business License Registration Fees 6/22/2023
Annual Business License Registration Fee per business1 $28 Estimated Avg. # of Business
Commercial Program SF per Business2 Businesses Reg. Fees Office 0 SF 20,000 0 $0
Industrial Park 1,219,680 SF 15,000 81 $2,268
Retail 0 SF 0 0 $0
Hotel (est. 393 keys) 0 keys 0 $0
81 $2,268
Estimate of Annual Business Registration Fees $2,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s

1. Source: City of Dublin; Initial fee amount is $102 per business, but thereafter the annual renewal fee is $28 per business.

2. KMA estimate.

Fiscal Revenue Analysis of Future Commercial Development Potential Along the Extension of Dublin Boulevard East of Current City Limit to Doolan Road

1746
Table 11: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Franchise Fee Revenues 6/22/2023
Franchise Fee FY 2022/231,2 $5,760,000
FY 2022/23 Service Population3 86,000
Estimated Franchise Fee per Service Population $67
New Service Population in Fallon Road Area 982
Estimate of Annual Franchise Fee Revenues $66,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s
1 Source: City of Dublin, Adopted Budget FY 2022/23; See Table 15 for details. 2 Includes Electric, Gas, Garbage and Cable Franchise Taxes. 3 See Table 16
Fiscal Revenue Analysis of Future Commercial Development Potential Along the Extension of Dublin Boulevard East of Current City Limit to Doolan Road

1747
06/22/23
Total Hard Cost Factor
Retail 0 SF $375/SF $0
Medical Office 0 SF $800/SF $0
Industrial Park 1,219,680 SF $175/SF $213,400,000
Hotel 0 keys $215,000/key $0
Total Hard Cost $213,400,000
Estimated Construction Material Cost as a percentage of Hard Costs1 50% Estimated Share with Dublin as a point of Sale2 50%
Estimated Construction Material Sales in City of Dublin $53,350,000 Local Sales and Use Tax Rate 1%
Total One-time Sales and Use Tax Revenues During Construction $530,000 Construction Jobs
Esimated Labor Cost as a percentage of Hard Costs 50%
$106,700,000
$79,040
Estimated Full-time Equivalent One-Year Construction Jobs4 1,350 Note: Figures rounded to closest 10,000s

1. KMA assumption.

3. Source: Occupational Employment Statistics Survey (OES), May 2021 (most current data available).

4. Based on convention, employment counts reflect a one-year construciton period.

Table 12: Estimate of One-time Sales and Use Tax and Employment Created by Construction Activities

2. For the purpose of this analysis it is assumed that 50% of the material costs will generate sales/use tax revenue to the city of Dublin, by general and sub-contractors designating the job site in Dublin as the point of sale for the materials.

Average Annual Wage for Construction Occupations in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, 20213
Estimated Construction Labor Costs
Fiscal Revenue Analysis of Future Commercial Development Potential Along the Extension of Dublin Boulevard East of Current City Limit to Doolan Road

1748
Table 13: Estimate of One-time Property Transfer Tax from Sale of Land for Development 6/22/2023
Transfer Tax Rate per $1,000 of Assessed Value $0.55
I. Property Transfer Tax from Purchase of Site
Assumed Land SF to be Sold 3,484,800
Sale Price1 $59,241,600
Transfer Tax generated from the land sale transaction $32,583 Transfer Tax generated from Land Sale Transaction1 $32,583 Note: Figures rounded.
1 KMA estimate reflects a conservative assumption of a 50% discount from average price of recent land sales.

Fiscal Revenue Analysis of Future Commercial Development Potential Along the Extension of Dublin Boulevard East of Current City Limit to Doolan Road

1749
Table 14: Estimate of Development Impact Fees
6/22/2023
SF Land Use EDTIF Trip
Rate* Impact Fee Rate Amount
0 Anchor 2.75 Public Facility Impact Fees varies $1,974,662 0 Shops 2.48 Fire Impact Fee varies $47,568
0 Fast Casual Restaurant 6.35 Eastern Dublin Transportation Impact Fee $13,751 $6,708,728 * 0 Fast Food without Drive Thru 18.42 Eastern Dublin Freeway Interchange Fee $36.25 $44,213 0 Office 1.50
1,219,680 Industrial Park 0.40 *
0 Hotel (140 rooms) 0.60 Tri Valley Transportation Development Fee Varies $6,061,810 1,219,680 0.40 * Eastern Dublin Noise Mitigation Fee varies $2,891 Affordable Housing In Lieu Fee Varies $756,202
Public Art In Lieu Fee ***
TOTAL IMPACT FEES $15,596,073
*EDTIf trip generation rate and fee per PM Peak hour trip were provided by City staff. ***Public Art In Lieu Fee: Is based on building size and the development project's building valuation, which are unknown at this time.

Fiscal Revenue Analysis of Future Commercial Development Potential Along the Extension of Dublin Boulevard East of Current City Limit to Doolan Road

1750
Table 15: FY 2022/23 General Fund Budget Summary
6/22/2023
General Fund Revenues
FY 2022-23 Basis of KMA Projection
Included in the Analysis
Property Taxes $55,163,000 assessed value, City share of 1% tax Sales Tax $26,400,000 est. project sales, empl. and resid. spending Property Transfer Tax $800,000 assessed value (AV), $0.55 per $1,000 of AV Transient Occupancy Tax $1,400,000 avg. daily room rate, and hotel occupancy Franchise Taxes $5,760,000 per capita based on service population Business licenses $150,000 based on number of businesses Subtotal $89,673,000
Revenues that are Deducted from Expenditures Allocation by Department Licenses & Permits $3,836,514 $3,801,518 Community Dev. $34,996 Fire Services
$0 Police Services
$0 Public Works
Fines and Penalties $85,000 $85,000 Police Services
Leased property $522,987 $522,987 Parks & Community Svcs. $0 Public Works
General Revenue $0 $0 Parks & Community Svcs.
$0 Public Works
Charges for Services $10,006,833 $27,000 General and Admin. $4,028,816 Community Development
$1,160,713 Fire Services
$20,750 Police Services
$4,769,554 Parks & Community Svcs.
$0 Public Works
Intergovernmental $0 $0 Human Resources
Subtotal $14,451,334
Rev. Sources Ex. From Analysis Reason for Exclusion
Intergovernmental $290,000 independent of project
Balance of licenses and permits $38,377 minor source of funds Transfers In $77,900 independent of project
General Revenue $1,534,036 independent of project
$0 independent of project
Sales Tax Reimbursements -$405,555 independent of project Interest Earnings $1,510,000 independent of project
Environmental Services $1,618,571 independent of project Fines & Penalties $0 independent of project
Subtotal $4,663,329
Total General Fund Revenue $108,787,663
Total Gas Tax Revenue to PW $1,140,543 Allocated to Public Works for Street Maint.

Fiscal Revenue Analysis of Future Commercial Development Potential Along the Extension of Dublin Boulevard East of Current City Limit to Doolan Road

1751
Table 16: City of Dublin Demographics, 2022
6/22/2023
2022
Population1 75,325
Households1 24,174
Employment1 22,125
Service Population2 86,000 rounded
Average Household Income1 $212,601
Average Household Size1 2.81
1 Source: ESRI, 2022
2 Service Population calculated as 50% of employment population.

Fiscal Revenue Analysis of Future Commercial Development Potential Along the Extension of Dublin Boulevard East of Current City Limit to Doolan Road

1752
Attachment 3
1753
1754
Ballot Measure Amending the
General Plan East of the City
Limits
City Council Meeting – Item 8.1
July 16, 2024
1755
Open Space Initiative of 2014
• Purpose was to protect
open spaces of Doolan
and Collier Canyons and
Western Dublin
Extended Planning Area.
1756
Open Space Initiative of 2014
• Established development standards (minimum parcel
sizes, maximum floor areas, limitations on use).
• Prohibited development when it would degrade
biological resources or without adequate water supply.
• Identified permissible uses, including an arterial road connecting Dublin Blvd. and North Canyons Pkwy.
1757
Open Space Initiative of 2014
• Specified that:
– The CC shall study commercial development along the
Dublin Blvd. extension up to 1,200 feet north of I-580 and whether such development is needed to fund the road.
– The CC may put a measure on the ballot to authorize
development in the designated area.
1758
Dublin Blvd. Extension
• 1.5-miles contemplated for 30 years
• Requires significant public investment
($150M+)
• Being planned by Alameda County
Transportation Commission, with Dublin
and Livermore
• EIR completed, mitigation monitoring
plan in 2019
• Dublin ($124M); Livermore ($27.5M) –
based on splitting property in
unincorporated AC
1759
Dublin Blvd. Extension
• Key benefits
– Improved fire and medical response times
– New transportation corridor
– Robust new bicycle network
1760
Dublin Blvd. Extension
• Within current City boundaries
– Opens multiple properties for limited commercial development next to the road
– Part of Fallon East Economic Development Zone
• Incentives to R&D, life science, advanced manufacturing, automation and robotics, startups, incubators, clean/green energy tech • 14,000+ new jobs
• Requires the DBE to ensure long-term success
– Funding plan in place for this portion of the DBE
1761
Dublin Blvd. Extension
• Beyond current City boundaries
– Two parcels (180 acres, half a mile)
– $54M for this section; current assumption splits this between Dublin and Livermore
– No funding source for this portion of the DBE
– Limited commercial development along the road could offset costs
1762
OSI Study
• Market and feasibility analysis completed in 2023
– Commercial development along this portion of the DBE would create:
• $1.1M in annual revenue
• $16M in one-time revenue
• 1.1M sq. ft. industrial/business park development
• 2,000 FT jobs / 3,700 total jobs (direct and indirect) – Water/wastewater service analysis to be completed later with LAFCO
– Emergency response times improved by 2 minutes
1763
Ballot Measure
• Asks voters if they want to amend the General Plan to give the City Council discretion to approve limited development of the site in the future.
– Placing the measure on the ballot and the voters’ approval of it is not a project approval.
• Future development approvals would require:
– Environmental review (CEQA)
– Amendment of Dublin’s Sphere of Influence
– Annexation of the property into Dublin
– Site development review
1764
Proposed Amendments to the General Plan
“Ten years after June 3, 2014, the City Council shall study commercial development along the extension of Dublin Boulevard to North Canyons Parkway up to 1,200 feet north of lnterstate Highway 580. The Council should consider, among other matters, whether commercial development is needed to fund the construction or maintenance of the extension, and if water supply and wastewater service is assured for any development. The Council may put a measure on the ballot to authorize development in the designated area. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Dublin Open Space Initiative of 2014 and this Section 2.8, the City shall not be prevented from designating for commercial development, consistent with what is permitted on the lands to the immediate west and within the City limits, the portion of the property east of the Dublin Eastern Urban Limit Line up to the Livermore city boundary and along the proposed extension of Dublin Boulevard to North Canyons Parkway, up to 1,200 feet north of Interstate 580 (the “1,200 foot line”).

Notwithstanding the geographic limitations in the previous sentence, commercial development may be approved in the portion north of the 1,200 foot line to the west of Cottonwood Creek, so long as the total area of developed land does not exceed 80 acres, thus ensuring that at least 100 acres of the property are preserved as open space. The City Council in determining whether to give such authorization shall be required to find that the proposed commercial development would contribute substantially to the funding of the construction and/or maintenance of the Dublin Boulevard extension, that at least 100 acres of open space will be permanently protected, that the portion of the right of way for Dublin Boulevard on the property was provided by the property owner without cost to the City (either through reimbursement for acquisition costs or dedication), and that water supply and wastewater service is assured for any development. If such future commercial development is authorized by the Council, the other provisions of the Dublin Open Space Initiative of 2014 and this section 2.8 shall not apply to it.”
1765
Map of Proposed Area
1766
Recommendation
Adopt the Resolution Ordering the Submission to the Qualified Electors of the City of Dublin an Ordinance Amending a Provision of the Dublin General Plan That was Added by the Dublin Open Space Initiative of 2014; Calling for an Election to be Consolidated with the Statewide Election to be Held on November 5, 2024; Fixing the Date and Manner of the Election and the Procedure for Voting Therein; and Providing for Notice Therefor.
1767
Thank You!
1768
July 16, 2024
SB 343
Senate Bill 343 mandates supplemental materials
that have been received by the City Clerk’s office that relate to an agenda item after the agenda packets
have been distributed to the City Council be available
to the public.

The attached documents were received in the City
Clerk’s office after distribution of the July 16, 2024, Regular City Council meeting agenda packet.

Item 8.1
1769
CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE

MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 16, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Item 8.1: Consideration of Ballot Measure to Amend the General Plan Regarding the Livbor-Manning LLC Property East of the City Limits The July 16, 2024, City Council Meeting includes the consideration of placing a measure on the ballot to amend a provision of the Dublin General Plan added by the Open Space Initiative of 2014.

The attached shows a change to the staff report on Item 8.1. It shows revisions to the ballot measure text that staff added to the resolution (Attachment 1) after the staff report had already been readied for publication. The staff report quoted the previous language. 1770

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Agenda Item 8.1
DATE: July 16, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Consideration of Ballot Measure to Amend the General Plan Regarding the Livbor-Manning LLC Property East of the City Limits Prepared by: Linda Smith, City Manager and John Bakker, City Attorney EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider placing a measure on the ballot to amend a provision of the Dublin General Plan added by the Open Space Initiative of 2014 in a manner that would allow future approval by the City of limited commercial development on certain property east of the City limits owned by Livbor-Manning LLC. If enacted, the measure would not affect current voter restrictions on new housing development.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt the Resolution Ordering the Submission to the Qualified Electors of the City of Dublin an Ordinance Amending a Provision of the Dublin General Plan That was Added by the Dublin Open Space Initiative of 2014; Calling for an Election to be Consolidated with the Statewide Election to be Held on November 5, 2024; Fixing the Date and Manner of the Election and the Procedure for Voting Therein; and Providing for Notice Therefor.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The actions relating to the placement of the item on the ballot will result in costs associated with the Alameda County Registrar of Voters of approximately $5,000 for the costs of printing the ballot materials in the Voters Information Pamphlet. 1771

DESCRIPTION:

Background
Open Space Initiative of 2014
The Dublin Open Space Initiative of 2014 (OSI) was adopted by the Dublin City Council on June 3, 2014. The stated purpose of the initiative was to protect the open spaces and agriculture of the Doolan and Collier Canyons area (which is the subject of this Staff Report) and the Western Extended Planning Area. Doolan-Collier Canyons is the area enclosed by the Dublin Eastern Urban Limit Line, Interstate 580, the Livermore city boundary, the eastern boundary of Collier Canyon, and the Alameda County-Contra Costa County boundary as shown in Figure 1 below. This area is located outside the City Limits and Sphere of Influence and is not in any of the City’s Planning Areas. The policies, regulations, and development standards adopted as part of the OSI apply only when property in the designated area is annexed into Dublin. Furthermore, these policies, regulations, and development standards can only be repealed or amended by the voters of Dublin. Much of the Doolan-Collier Canyons area depicted in Figure 1 is also permanently protected as habitat mitigation banks or public agency ownership.

Figure 1: Doolan and Collier Canyons
The OSI established certain development standards including minimum parcel sizes, maximum floor areas, limitations on use, and prohibited development under certain circumstances where it would degrade biological resources, or not have adequate, safe, and sustainable water supply. Section 2.8.8 of the General Plan identifies permissible uses. Among other uses, the OSI does allow an arterial road (i.e., the Dublin Boulevard extension) for the stated purpose of connecting Dublin Boulevard and North Canyons Parkway (Section

2.8.8.11).
1772

Section 2.8.8 of the General Plan further states the following: “Ten years after June 3, 2014, the City Council shall study commercial development along the extension of Dublin Boulevard to North Canyons Parkway up to 1,200 feet north of interstate Highway 580. The Council should consider, among other matters, whether commercial development is needed to fund the construction or maintenance of the extension, and if water supply and wastewater service is assured for any development. The Council may put a measure on the ballot to authorize development in the designated area.”
Dublin Boulevard Extension
Dublin Boulevard serves as the primary east-west route in the City and is a key piece of infrastructure, serving motorists as well as the long-term needs of the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian communities. Extending Dublin Boulevard beyond its current terminus at Fallon Road requires significant public investment, currently estimated at more than $150 million.

The 1.5-mile extension has been part of the long-term development plan for about 30 years and is being planned by the Alameda County Transportation Commission, in consultation with the City of Dublin and the City of Livermore. An environmental impact report (EIR) was certified and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the Dublin Boulevard extension was approved in August 2019. It is expected that Dublin’s share for the extension will be approximately $124 million, and Livermore’s share will be approximately $27.5 million, based on the roadway length in each jurisdiction and a split of the portion of the roadway in unincorporated Alameda County, known as the Crosby property (owned by Livbor-Manning LLC).

The Dublin Boulevard Extension will result in many key benefits to the community, including improved fire and medical 911 response times, a new public transportation corridor to Livermore, as well as a more convenient northside route for Dublin residents wishing to travel to and from Livermore to places like Las Positas College. In addition to benefits to motorists, the extension will include a robust new bicycle network and safe pedestrian access for recreational community needs.

Within the City’s current boundaries, the Dublin Boulevard extension will open multiple properties for limited commercial development adjacent to the extension. Entitlements are being sought by all but one of the properties currently within the City limits and are part of the City Council’s Fallon East Economic Development Zone. The Fallon East Economic Development Zone is a key component to the City’s economic development efforts and will provide incentives to users in the research and development, life science, advanced manufacturing, automation and robotics, startups, incubators, and clean/green technology industries. The area, once constructed, will primarily be home to future commercial and business park uses, creating more than 14,000 permanent, high-wage jobs. The Fallon East Economic Development Zone requires the completed extension of Dublin Boulevard to ensure its long-term success.
1773

Beyond the City’s current boundary, which the extension crosses to connect to North Canyons Parkway, is the Crosby property. The property includes two parcels of land totaling approximately 180 acres and accounts for a half mile of frontage along the new extension.

Road costs associated with this section of the Dublin Boulevard extension are estimated at over $54 million. Currently, it is assumed that Livermore and Dublin would equally share in the cost of improvements, and there is no current funding source for these expenses by either agency. Limited commercial, non-residential development along the Dublin Boulevard extension could provide an opportunity to offset certain costs associated with the extension, including right of way and mitigation lands, as well as create a sustainable revenue source for the ongoing maintenance of the roadway. It should be noted that within the City’s boundaries, the City Council authorized a funding plan for its share of costs, totaling nearly $80 million.

This plan includes advancing future traffic impact fees from the City’s General Fund reserves and establishing reimbursement payments from benefiting property owners for the City’s upfront costs associated with indirect mitigation of the road.

Open Space Initiative Studies and Analysis
As part of the assessment required by the OSI 10 years after its adoption, the City conducted a market and feasibility analysis with Keyser Marston in 2023. (Attachment 2). In summary, the report indicates that commercial development of the portion of the property directly adjacent to the extension would yield economic benefit to the City. The property would create nearly $1.1 million in annual new revenue to maintain the extension, provide additional funding for the City’s operations, and produce nearly $16 million in one-time construction-related revenues. The analysis suggests that the limited area for development could yield up to 1.2 million square feet of industrial/business park development (based on a FAR of .35), resulting in the creation of more than 2,000 full-time jobs and a total of more than 3,700 jobs (both direct and indirect) throughout the County.

As part of its assessment, the City engaged in discussions with the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) to determine whether water and wastewater service is assured. Given that this first step of asking the voters is not an annexation request, DSRSD was unable to provide the analysis until such a request is made to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). This evaluation would occur after the voters of Dublin decide whether to amend the current boundaries.

Staff requested and received biological resource information from the property owner, Livbor Manning, LLC. This information suggests there is some value to certain species on the property, particularly the area surrounding Cottonwood Creek.

As previously mentioned, a benefit of the Dublin Boulevard extension is improved fire and medical 911 response times. To that end, the City evaluated 911 fire and medical emergency response times to the area. Currently, there are properties in the City of Dublin just west of the Crosby property accessed only from Collier Canyon Road. Emergency response to those areas requires responders to leave Dublin and access the property from the east, typically 1774

using the Airway Boulevard-Collier Canyon Rd. Interchange. Staff worked with Alameda County Fire Department staff assigned to Dublin to determine current and future response times from Station 18 in Dublin. (Attachment 3) The current response time to the Crosby property along Collier Canyon Road via Highway 580 is approximately five minutes. Future response times to this property via the Dublin Boulevard extension would be three minutes, creating a time savings of approximately two minutes for fire and medical response.

Ballot Measure
Staff has prepared the attached Resolution (Attachment 1) submitting to the Dublin voters consideration of an amendment to the Dublin General Plan as follows (material deleted from the General Plan is in strikeout type):
“Ten years after June 3, 2014, the City Council shall study commercial development along the extension of Dublin Boulevard to North Canyons Parkway up to 1,200 feet north of lnterstate Highway 580. The Council should consider, among other matters, whether commercial development is needed to fund the construction or maintenance of the extension, and if water supply and wastewater service is assured for any development. The Council may put a measure on the ballot to authorize development in the designated area. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Dublin Open Space Initiative of 2014 and this Section 2.8, the City shall not be prevented from designating for commercial development, consistent with what is permitted on the lands to the immediate west and within the City limits, the portion of the property east of the Dublin Eastern Urban Limit Line up to the Livermore city boundary and along the proposed extension of Dublin Boulevard to North Canyons Parkway, up to 1,200 feet north of Interstate 580 (the “1,200 foot line”). Notwithstanding the geographic limitations in the previous sentence, commercial development may be approved in the portion north of the 1,200 foot line to the west of Cottonwood Creek, so long as the total area of developed land does not exceed 80 acres, thus ensuring that at least 100 acres of the property are preserved as open space. The City Council in determining whether to give such authorization shall be required to find that the proposed commercial development would contribute substantially to the funding of the construction and/or maintenance of the Dublin Boulevard extension, that at least 100 acres of open space will be permanently protected, that the portion of the right of way for Dublin Boulevard on the property was provided by the property owner without cost to the City (either through reimbursement for acquisition costs or dedication), and that water supply and wastewater service is assured for any development. If such future commercial development is authorized by the Council, the other provisions of the Dublin Open Space Initiative of 2014 and this section 2.8 shall not apply to it.” If approved, the measure would allow the City Council, in the future, to approve development of the site. Future development approvals would require, potentially among other things, environmental review under CEQA, general plan amendment, prezoning/zoning, amendment of the City’s sphere of influence, annexation, and site development review. 1775

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City Council’s approval of the resolution is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. The measure, if approved by the Dublin electorate, would merely authorize the City Council to designate, in the future and in its future exercise of discretion, certain open space lands for commercial development as a means of financing the Dublin Boulevard extension project. As such, it will not cause a direct physical change in the environment or cause a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

Of course, any such potential future exercise of discretion will be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act’s requirements.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The City Council Agenda was posted.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution Ordering the Submission to the Qualified Electors of the City of Dublin an Ordinance Amending a Provision of the Dublin General Plan that was added by the Dublin Open Space Initiative of 2014; Calling for an Election to be Consolidated with the Statewide Election to be Held on November 5, 2024; Fixing the Date and Manner of the Election and the Procedure for Voting Therein; and Providing for Notice Therefor 2) Keyser Marston Report – Commercial Development Opportunities and Fiscal and Economic Benefits of Dublin Blvd. Extension – East of City Limits to Doolan Road 3) Fire Response Exhibits
1776
1777
1778
July 15, 2024
Linda Smith
City Manager
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Via email: [email protected]
Re: Request to Leave a Considerable Portion of the Crosby Properties Undeveloped with Clear Notation in the Proposed Ballot Measure Language
Dear Linda,
This letter follows up on the discussions between Livermore and Dublin staff concerning Dublin’s plans to develop the unincorporated area between our two cities, comprised of two parcels (“western” and “eastern”) both owned by Mr. Crosby (refer to Attachment 1). I am formally requesting, in line with the direction given to staff by the Livermore City Council in November 2023, that the City of Dublin continue negotiations with the City of Livermore to identify a reasonable open space separator between the two communities to responsibly address priorities of the Livermore residents as outlined in our General Plan and confirmed through a poll conducted in October-November 2023, and to satisfy requirements of the Alameda County Measure D that calls for preservation of agricultural lands and protection of open space, watersheds, and wildlife habitat.

Background
The Cities of Dublin and Livermore have been working cooperatively for a number of years on the Dublin Boulevard Extension Project (“Project”). The Project includes an approximately 1.6-mile extension of Dublin Boulevard from Fallon Road in the City of Dublin to North Canyons Parkway in the City of Livermore. This coordination has included several discussions related to the future land use of the surrounding properties, namely the properties comprising approximately 180 acres (commonly referred to as the “Crosby Properties”) located in Alameda County, west of Doolan Road and north of Interstate 580 (Assessor Parcel Numbers [APNs] 905-1-1-2 and 905-1-3-2). Approximately 0.6-mile of the roadway would traverse through the Crosby Properties.

On May 3, 2016, the Cities of Dublin and Livermore entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU), which stated that only development consistent with Alameda County Measure D would be allowed within this unincorporated area (refer to Attachment 2). On September 25, 2020, Alameda County Transportation City Hall

CITY OF
1052 South Ilvermore Ave., Ilvermore, CA 94550
Phone: (925) 960--4000 TDD: (925) 960--4104
www.IlvermoreCA.gov
1779
Letter to Dublin re: Crosby Properties
July 15, 2024

Commission and the Cities of Dublin and Livermore entered into an MOU, which acknowledged that development in this unincorporated area is subject to Alameda County’s land use authority and regulations, including Measure D (Attachment 3). This unincorporated area is designated by Alameda County as Resource Management. Measure D limits Resource Management-designated lands to a maximum building intensity for non-residential uses of .01 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and a minimum size of 20,000 square feet. One single family home and associated residential accessory buildings is permitted per parcel, up to a maximum of 12,000 square feet. It should be noted that the Resource Management designation is “intended mainly for land designated for long-term preservation as open space but may include low intensity agriculture, grazing, and very low density residential use.”
In September 2023, the cities of Dublin and Livermore submitted individual requests to the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) as part of LAFCo’s Municipal Service Review (MSR). The requests included amending each city’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) to include the Crosby Properties within each respective city’s SOI. On May 9, 2024, the Draft MSR was presented to LAFCo for discussion and feedback. The Draft MSR included a recommendation to LAFCo to not make any changes to the SOI boundaries surrounding the Crosby Properties at this time. The Draft MSR will be released for a 30-day public review period prior to returning to LAFCo for final action at their September 12, 2024 meeting.

At the October 9, 2023, Livermore City Council meeting, Livermore staff was directed to conduct a citywide poll to reaffirm Livermore residents’ interests in preserving open space and the scenic corridor in Doolan Canyon, consistent with the Livermore General Plan policies. Livermore General Plan Policy CC-1.1 P1 prohibits structural development in hillside areas involving skylines, ridgelines, or silhouettes and Policy CC1.1 P2 prohibits intensive development of the hills and requires development to be located, sited and designed to fit and be subordinate to the natural landforms. In addition, Livermore’s City's General Plan includes goals and policies to maintain a greenbelt between the City of Dublin and City of Livermore and preserve open space and agricultural uses. Specifically, Policy CC-1.1 P6 states that the City shall maintain an area of non-urbanized land surrounding Livermore to serve as a buffer between communities. Uses that are considered compatible with this area include agriculture, grazing, open space, recreation, and reclaimed sand and gravel extraction. Please refer to Attachment 4 for the City Council staff report, which outlines the long-standing open space preservation policies.

A citywide poll was conducted by the City of Livermore from October 30 through early November 2023, and the results were shared publicly at the November 13, 2023, Livermore City Council meeting. Through the poll, Livermore residents reaffirmed a high level of support for maintaining open space between the two cities with a majority of residents strongly supporting maintaining this area as open space. As a result, the Livermore City Council directed staff to negotiate with the City of Dublin to address Livermore residents’ preferences and approved the negotiating priorities which included preserving an adequate open space buffer between the two cities. Please refer to Attachment 5 for the City Council staff report.

Consistent with the above direction, the existing Livermore General Plan policies, polling results and County Measure D restrictions, City of Livermore staff met with Mr. Crosby in November 2023 to discuss limitation of development of the Crosby Properties. Mr. Crosby made it clear that he was interested in developing both parcels by annexing them into the City of Dublin and indicated that he had been negotiating the development with the City of Dublin since 2011.
1780
Letter to Dublin re: Crosby Properties
July 15, 2024

Staff from the cities of Livermore and Dublin have had several discussions about the Crosby Properties. On December 26, 2023, the Cities of Dublin and Livermore submitted a joint letter to Alameda County LAFCo to inform LAFCo staff that the cities are working collaboratively to reach a compromise related to land use planning for the Crosby Properties (Attachment 6). The joint letter included a commitment for the cities to achieve a compromise by Summer 2024.

Livermore’s Request
The City of Livermore has reviewed the language of the ballot measure proposed by Dublin staff for November 2024, with the intent of annexing and developing both Crosby properties. The proposed measure language, included in the staff report, is as follows:
“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Dublin Open Space Initiative of 2014 and this Section 2.8, the City shall not be prevented from designating for commercial development, consistent with what is permitted on the lands to the immediate west and within the City limits, the portion of the property east of the Dublin Eastern Urban Limit Line up to the Livermore city boundary and along the proposed extension of Dublin Boulevard to North Canyons Parkway, up to 1,200 feet north of Interstate 580 (the “1,200 foot line”). Notwithstanding the geographic limitations in the previous sentence, commercial development may be approved in the portion north of the 1,200 foot line to the west of Cottonwood Creek, so long as the total area of developed land does not exceed 80 acres, thus ensuring that at least 100 acres of the property are preserved as open space.

The City Council in determining whether to give such authorization shall be required to find that the proposed commercial development would contribute substantially to the funding of the construction and/or maintenance of the Dublin Boulevard extension, and that water supply and wastewater service is assured for any development. If such future commercial development is authorized by the Council, the other provisions of the Dublin OpenSpace Initiative of 2014 and this section 2.8 shall not apply to it.” We are disappointed that the proposed ballot language does not take into consideration Livermore’s interests and find this inconsistent with our mutual commitment to negotiate as expressed in our joint letter to LAFCo.

In addition, it is our interpretation that the Dublin City Council’s action would be subject to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it may result in an effect on the environment. The ballot question approves language for Dublin to accept a land donation in exchange for commercial development. However, the proposed ballot language does not include any environmental analysis, nor is it accompanied by a development proposal. Environmental analysis would allow Dublin and Livermore residents and the City of Livermore staff to better understand the proposed measure and the associated development of the Crosby properties, the potential impacts and tradeoffs, and provide an opportunity to provide comments. That CEQA analysis is required now because there is a casual link between the development opportunities being exchanged for the land being donated and the financial effect of the development anticipated by the Keyser Marston report.
1781
Letter to Dublin re: Crosby Properties
July 15, 2024

Lastly, we find Dublin’s staff report misleading in noting that Livermore would be contributing financially to the cost of the Dublin Boulevard extension if the Crosby properties are annexed into Dublin. As clearly stipulated in the MOUs related to the Dublin Boulevard extension and confirmed by you verbally during our meetings, Livermore’s contribution to the project would go away if the properties are annexed into Dublin.

In addition, Dublin would be required to reimburse Livermore for the costs of PS&E currently estimated at $135,270. Lastly, ongoing maintenance of the road would be solely Dublin’s responsibility.

As noted above, multiple City of Livermore policies, as well as residents’ expectations recently verified through a citywide poll, support maintaining an adequate greenbelt separating the two communities. In addition, Dublin and Livermore’s joint letter to LAFCo contains a mutual pledge to work on a compromise concerning the Crosby properties. Therefore, the City of Livermore is formally requesting that the City of Dublin commit to continuing negotiations to identify an adequate open space separator between our two communities. The City of Livermore is open to exploring property acquisition with Mr. Crosby to preserve the land identified through these negotiations as open space.

We request that the City of Dublin continue negotiations with the City of Livermore, specifically mention the preservation of a considerable portion of the Crosby Property in its proposed ballot measure, clarify how annexation would shift the entire financial responsibility for Dublin Boulevard extension construction and maintenance to Dublin, and provide an opportunity for the City of Livermore and other interested parties to analyze and comment on the impacts of this proposal through a required environmental analysis. With this balanced approach that addresses Dublin’s interest in development and Livermore and Alameda County’s interests in open space preservation, we look forward to preparing a joint request to LAFCo in the coming months. Please include a copy of this letter for the record with item 8.1 on the July 16th Dublin City Council agenda.

We look forward to continuing our monthly meetings with you and your staff to implement the above strategy, and to continue working together on planning the Dublin Boulevard extension. As always, please let me know if I can answer any questions.

Sincerely,
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
1782
Letter to Dublin re: Crosby Properties
July 15, 2024