Agenda packet — Dublin City Council, June 16, 2026 (part 10 of 10)

110778\19525869v4
approximately 220 parcels in Francis Ranch told Trumark that it received no Notices or ballots.1 Trumark and at least one other property owner have been deprived of the protest process that Proposition 218 guarantees.

Trumark reached out to the City regarding the lack of Notices around June 1 and sent an email to Brad Olson on June 9. On June 10, Mr. Olson asked Trumark to send a list of its property addresses and corresponding Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (“APNs”). It is the City’s responsibility—not Trumark’s—to ensure the Notices reach affected property owners. (Gov.

Code, § 53753, subd. (b); see Cal. Const., art. XIII D, § 6, subd. (a)(1) [“agency shall provide written notice by mail of the proposed fee or charge to the record owner of each identified parcel”]; see also Silicon Valley Taxpayers’ Ass’n, Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (2008) 44 Cal.4th 431, 438 [“local agencies must give the record owners of all assessed parcels written notice of the proposed assessment, a voting ballot, and a statement disclosing that a majority protest will prevent the assessment’s passage”].) Incorrectly mailed Notices are the same as no notice at all. (See KCSFV I, LLC v. Florin County Water Dist. (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 1015, 1038 [“we find the notice and hearing provisions in [Cal. Const., art. XIII D] section 6 analogous to due process protections”].) Further, even if the City had updated its mailing list and reissued Notices and ballots to corrected addresses today, it cannot hold a hearing until after July 27, 2026. (Cal. Const., art. XIII D, §§ 4, subd. (e), 6, subd. (a)(2); Gov.

Code, § 53753, subd. (b).)
One of the primary purposes in passing Proposition 218, and its Notice and ballot requirement, is to “protect[] taxpayers by limiting the methods by which local governments exact revenue from taxpayers without their consent.” (Silicon Valley Taxpayers’ Ass’n, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 438.) Compliance with Proposition 218’s “procedural requirements is fundamental to ensure ratepayers have the information necessary to determine whether to, among other things, submit a written protest to the rate increase in advance of the hearing.” (KCSFV I, LLC, supra, 64 Cal.App.5th at p. 1040.) If the City conducts a ballot tabulation for SLAD 2026-1 without the ballots Trumark is entitled to but did not receive, this would be inimical to Proposition 218 and prejudicial to Trumark.

Trumark thus objects to SLAD 2026-1 and requests that the City continue the public hearing, confirm its list of property owners and addresses, and send corrected Notices and ballots at least 45 days before the continued hearing. These actions will allow Trumark and other affected record owners the opportunity to act on SLAD 2026-1 as Proposition 218 requires.

Sincerely,
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
Linda C. Klein
cc: Dublin City Council ([email protected])
1 These failures of owners to receive Notice and a ballot suggest that other property owners also may not have received the material necessary to vote on the assessment. 1896
1 Brad Olson
From: Marsha Moore
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2026 12:33 PM
To:

Cc: Colleen Tribby; John Bakker; Dublin Streetlights
Subject: Objection to Proposed Street Lighting Assessment District (SLAD) 2026-1 Attachments: Written Ojection Response Letter - Trumark.pdf Ms. Klein:

Please find the attached response letter in regards to Trumark Homes’ objection to SLAD 2026-1.

The objection misunderstands the City’s Proposition 218 noticing requirements. Article XIII D of the California Constitution requires the City to mail a notice and a ballot to “the record owner” of each “identified parcel.” (Const., art. XIII D, § 4, subds. (c), (d).) The Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act (the “Act”) (Gov. Code, § 53750 et seq.), whose procedures “supersede any statutory provisions applicable to the levy of a new or increased assessment,” defines both. (Gov. Code, § 53753, subd. (a).) Under the Act, an “identified parcel” is “a parcel of real property that an agency has identified as having a special benefit conferred upon it and upon which a proposed assessment is to be imposed . . .” and a “record owner” is “the owner of a parcel whose name and address appears on the last equalized secured property tax assessment roll. . . .” (Gov. Code, § 53750, subds. (g), (j).) Because the objection identifies no legal defect in the City’s noticing procedures, the objection does not result in any amendment to proposed SLAD 2026-1, and the invitation to continue the hearing until after July 27, 2026 is respectfully denied. The SLAD 2026-1 public hearing will proceed as duly noticed on June 16, 2026 at 7:00 p.m., where Trumark’s objection will be presented to, and considered by, the City Council. (See Cal. Const., art. XIII D, § 4, subd. (e); Gov. Code, § 53759.1, subd. (c)(5).) The City thanks Trumark for its engagement and the opportunity to address its concerns.

Best regards,
Marsha Moore, MMC
City Clerk
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568
(925) 833-6644 | (925) 833-6651 FAX
[email protected] | www.dublin.ca.gov
Mission Statement: The City of Dublin promotes and supports a high quality of life, ensures a safe, secure, and sustainable environment, fosters new opportunities, and champions a culture of equity, diversity, and inclusion.

Exhibit L
Emailed Response to Submission 6
1897
1898
To be sure, the City does not disagree. But in doing so, it adheres to the Constitution and Legislature’s instruction. Consistent with that mandate, the City mailed the required notice and ballots on or before April 24, 2026 to the record owners of the identified parcels in the proposed SLAD 2026-1, as shown on the last equalized secured assessment roll of Alameda County. The City is unaware of any legal authority requiring it to instead follow Trumark’s interpretation of the Constitution “when, as here, the statute or constitutional provision contains its own definition of the term at issue.” (Id. at p. 423.) The objection’s reliance on KCSFV I, LLC v. Florin County Water Dist. (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 1015 does not reach a different result. In that case, the notice at issue regarding a water rate increase under Section 6 of Article XIII D merely provided a hypothetical rate rather than the actual amount of each parcel’s increase, omitted the basis of calculation, and the agency could not prove it had mailed the notice. (Id. at pp. 1038–1040.) Those facts are absent here. Furthermore, the KCSFV I court never considered or questioned the Legislature’s definition of “record owner” entitled to mailed notice; and “[c]ases are not authority for propositions not considered” (Id. at p. 1032.) Accordingly, the City’s duty to provide “[n]otice by mail” under Article XIII D of the Constitution was “accomplished through a mailing, postage prepaid, deposited in the United States Postal Service and is deemed given when so deposited.” (Gov. Code, § 53750, subd. (i).)
Because the objection identifies no legal defect in the City’s noticing procedures, the objection does not result in any amendment to proposed SLAD 2026-1, and the invitation to continue the hearing until after July 27, 2026 is respectfully denied. The SLAD 2026-1 public hearing will proceed as duly noticed on June 16, 2026 at 7:00 p.m., where Trumark’s objection will be presented to, and considered by, the City Council. (See Cal. Const., art. XIII D, § 4, subd. (e); Gov. Code, § 53759.1, subd. (c)(5).) The City thanks Trumark for its engagement and the opportunity to address its concerns.

Sincerely,
Marsha Moore
City Clerk
1899
Public Hearings for
Assessment Districts
June 16, 2026
1900
Agenda
• Landscaping and Lighting Districts
(LLDs) Public Hearing
• Proposed Street Lighting
Assessment District (SLAD) 2026-1
Public Hearing
1901
Public Hearing: Landscaping and Lighting Districts (LLDs) 1902
LLD Timeline
Mar 3,
2026
Council Directed
Preparation of
Annual Engineer’s
Reports
Apr 7,
2026
Council Approved
Preliminary
Engineer’s Reports
and Set Public
Hearing Date
Jun 4,
2026
Public Notice
Posted at Several
Locations and on
the City’s Website
Jun 5,
2026
Public Notice
Published in The
East Bay Times
Jun 16,
2026
Public Hearing
Aug 10,
2026
New Assessment
Rates Due to County
Nov 1,
2026
Due Date for First
Installment of
Property Tax Bill
Reflecting Approved
Assessments
1903
LLD 1983-2
Maintains Tract 4719 roadway landscaping adjacent to
Stagecoach Road
Maximum annual assessments increased by 1.61%:
• $539.64 per Parcel for Single Family Residences
• $91.25 per Unit for a Multi Family Residences
Projected Revenue: $138,402
Projected Expenditures: $115,371
Projected Reserve Balance: $357,631
• Addition to Reserves: $23,031
1904
LLD 1986-1
Maintains landscaping, fences, and sound walls west of
Dougherty Road and north of Amador Valley Boulevard
Maximum annual assessments increased by 1.35%:
• $324.33 per Single Family Residential Parcel
• $162.17 per Multi Family Residential Unit
• $1,297.32 per Commercial Parcel
Projected Revenue: $221,296
Projected Expenditures: $634,197
Projected Reserve Balance: $576,434
• Use of Reserves: ($412,901)
• Includes Amortized Loan for Alamo Creek Fence Replacement 1905
LLD 1997-1
Funds street side landscape and utility costs for the
Santa Rita development area
Maximum annual assessments increased by 1.88%:
• $58.03 to $225.35 per parcel/lot for residential properties • $941.91 per acre for retail, office, and industrial parcels Projected Revenue: $422,707
Projected Expenditures: $442,826
Projected Reserve Balance: $1,091,126
• Use of Reserves: ($20,119)
• Expenditures include $50,000 carryforward for grid pruning 1906
LLDs and Assessment Summary
District Property Type
Current
Assessment
Proposed
Assessment
$
Change
%
Change
FY 26-27 Projected
Reserve Balance
LLD 1983-2
(Stagecoach)
Single Family Residential (SFR) $531.10 $539.64 $8.54 1.61 $357,631
Apartment/Condominium $89.81 $91.25 $1.44 1.61
LLD 1986-1 (Willow
Creek)
SFR $320.00 $324.33 $4.33 1.35
Apartment/Condominium $160.00 $162.17 $2.16 1.35 $576,434 Commercial $1,280.00 $1,297.32 $17.32 1.35
LLD 1997-1 (Santa Rita)
CA Creekside SFR $131.46 $133.93 $2.47 1.88
$1,091,126
CA Creekside Multi-Family Residential (MFR) $56.96 $58.03 $1.07 1.88 Summer Glen ‐ Richmond American (North) Lots $115.12 $117.28 $2.16 1.88 Summer Glen ‐ Richmond American (South) Lots $126.68 $129.06 $2.38 1.88 Summer Glen ‐ Kaufman & Broad Lots $176.30 $179.61 $3.31 1.88 Summer Glen ‐ Pulte Lots $221.19 $225.35 $4.16 1.88
Dublin Greene Tract 7084 SFR $139.25 $141.87 $2.62 1.88 Dublin Greene Tract 7149 SFR $104.85 $106.82 $1.97 1.88 Dublin Greene Tract 7149 Condominiums $54.65 $55.68 $1.03 1.88 Other Parcels Including Retail, Office, and Industrial $924.54 $941.91 $17.37 1.88 1907
LLD Expenditure Budget Summary
Expenditure Category LLD 1983-2
(Stagecoach)
LLD 1986-1
(Willow Creek)
LLD 1997-1
(Santa Rita)
Maintenance Contract $74,224 $65,550 $299,179
Electricity $2,500 $3,000 $1,500
Water $30,000 $55,500 $105,000
Administrative $8,647 $10,147 $37,147
Capital Improvement
Projects (CIP) $0 $500,000 $0
Totals: $115,371 $634,197 $442,826
1908
LLD Next Steps
June 16, 2026: LLD Public Hearing
August 10, 2026: New Assessment Rates Due to Alameda County Auditor/Controller November 1, 2026: Due Date for First Installment of Property Tax Bill Reflecting Approved Assessments
1909
LLD Recommendation
• Conduct a Public Hearing
• Deliberate
• Recommended Action: Adopt the Resolution Accepting the Engineer’s Reports and Confirming Diagrams and Assessments for Fiscal Year 2026-27 for Landscaping and Lighting Districts 1983-2, 1986-1, and 1997-1. 1910
Public Hearing: Proposed Street Lighting Assessment District SLAD No. 2026-1
1911
SLAD Timeline
Jan 20,
2026
Council
Directed
Staff to
Proceed
with
Proposition
218 Process
Mar 3,
2026
Council
Initiated
Formation of
SLAD and
Directed
Preparation of
Engineer’s
Report
Apr 7,
2026
Council
Approved
Preliminary
Engineer’s
Report and
Set Public
Hearing Date
Apr 24,
2026
Public
Notice
and Ballot
Sent to
Affected
Property
Owners
Jun 12,
2026
5:00 p.m.

Deadline
for Written
Objections
Jun 16,
2026
Public
Hearing
and Close
of Ballot
Period
Jun 17,
2026
9:00 a.m.

Ballot
Tabulation in
Chambers
Jul 21,
2026
Declare
Results of
Ballot
Tabulation
Aug 10,
2026
New
Assessment
Rates Due to
County
Nov 1,
2026
Due Date for
First
Installment of
Property Tax
Bill Reflecting
Approved
Assessments
1912
Overview of Proposed SLAD 2026-1
• If approved, SLAD 2026-1 would fund operation and maintenance of streetlights throughout the City • Excluding Camp Parks and The Boulevard
• SLAD 2026-1 would generate $1.14 million in assessments for FY 2026-27 • City would cover portion of lighting attributed to general benefit • 12% major roadways, 2% local roadways
• FY 2026-27 Estimate: $86,860
• SLAD 2026-1 would be comprised of three benefit zones:
• Benefit Zone A: Major Roadways
• Benefit Zone B: Local Non-Decorative Street Lighting
• Benefit Zone C: Local Decorative Street Lighting
• Fund balances for SLMD 1983-1 and SLMD 1999-1 would be split proportionately between the zones 1913
SLAD Benefit Zone and Assessment Summary
District Benefit Zone Non-Decorative
Street Lighting
Decorative
Street Lighting
Private Street
Lighting
FY 26-27 Projected
Reserve Balance
A - Major Roadways $17 $17 $17 $623,530
B - Non-Decorative Street Lighting $18 $0 $0 $205,668
C - Decorative Street Lighting $0 $45 $0 $659,082
Total: $35 $62 $17 $1,488,280
1914
SLAD Expenditure Budget Summary
Description Major Roadway
Benefit Zone A
Local Non-Decorative
Benefit Zone B
Local Decorative
Benefit Zone C District Total
Maintenance Contract $100,000 $54,300 $50,700 $205,000
Electricity $350,000 $206,900 $193,100 $750,000
District Administration
and Supplies $35,000 $20,700 $19,300 $75,000
Unforeseen Expenditures
and Contingencies $48,500 $28,190 $26,310 $103,000
County Collection Fee
(1.7% of Assessments) $10,000 $5,690 $5,310 $21,000
Totals: $543,500 $315,780 $294,720 $1,154,000
1915
SLAD 2026-1 Public Outreach Efforts
• Informational Mailer with Ballot
• Dedicated Informational Webpage with Frequently Asked Questions, Animated Video, and Informational Resources
• Dublin Digest Newsletter and Newsflash Alerts
• Social Media Posts
• Tabling at St. Patrick’s Day Celebration
and three Farmer’s Markets
• Virtual Community Meeting
• HOA Engagement
1916
Responses to Written Objections
• Relatively new Government Code provisions (AB 2257) created an optional process to limit Constitutional challenges to assessments, and the City opted in to the process. • Under the process, individuals can submit written objections explaining why they believe the assessments violate the Constitution, and the City must provide written responses. • The City received six objections: Two specified grounds for objections, and four did not. • The City has responded to all of the objections in the SB 343 Item. • The City Council is required to consider the objections and make certain determinations, including whether to proceed with the assessment as proposed in the notice. • Staff recommends that the City Council, prior to closing the public hearing, consider the objections and responses and determine to proceed with the ballot tabulation hearing. 1917
SLAD Next Steps
June 16, 2026: Public Hearing (Ballots may be Submitted/Changed/Withdrawn until Close of Hearing) June 17, 2026: Ballot Tabulation
July 21, 2026: Declare Results of Ballot Tabulation
• If no majority protest: adopt final resolution approving SLAD 2026-1 • If majority protest: hold a Public Hearing and adopt final resolutions for SLMD 1983-1 and SLMD 1999-1 August 10, 2026: New Assessment Rates Due to Alameda County Auditor/Controller June 16, 2026: LLD Public Hearing
August 10, 2026: New Assessment Rates Due to Alameda County Auditor/Controller November 1, 2026: Due Date for First Installment of Property Tax Bill Reflecting Approved Assessments 1918
SLAD Recommendation
• Open a Public Hearing for Street Light Assessment District (SLAD) 2026-1 • Consider any valid written objections and responses for SLAD 2026-1 and determine whether to proceed with the Proposition 218 balloting process • Receive testimony regarding the proposed formation and assessments for SLAD 2026-1 • Close the Public Hearing
• Recommended Action: Proceed with the Proposition 218 balloting process; direct the City Clerk, or their designee, to publicly tabulate the assessment ballots at 9:00 a.m. on June 17, 2026 at the Dublin Civic Center; and continue the item to July 21, 2026 at which time ballot tabulation results will be presented and the City Council will consider action on the proposed district and assessments.
1919
Agenda Item 6.3

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Page 1 of 4 ends

DATE: June 16, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Colleen Tribby, City Manager
SUBJECT: First Amendment to the Development Agreement for the SCS Dublin Project (Dublin Centre) (PLPA-004414-2026)
Prepared by: Amy Million, Community Development Director EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider a request by the applicant, Landsea Homes of California LLC, to approve a First Amendment to the Development Agreement for the SCS Dublin Project (Dublin Centre). The request is focused on amending Section 5.9 and the restrictions associated with the issuance of residential building permits until a permit is issued for the non-residential portions of the project. The City Council will also consider a finding that the proposed amendment is covered by the SCS Dublin Environmental Impact Report and no further environmental review is required.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Conduct a public hearing, deliberate, waive the reading, and introduce an Ordinance Approving a First Amendment to the Development Agreement for the SCS Dublin Project Between the City of Dublin and Landsea Homes of California, LLC.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

All costs associated with the processing of the application are paid by the applicant.

DESCRIPTION:

Background
On November 15, 2022 the City Council approved the SCS Dublin Project (Resolution No. 136-22), which includes development of up to 650 residential units and up to 265,000 square feet of retail commercial development on 76.2 acres north of Interstate 580 between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street.
1920

Page 2 of 4 ends

The project represented the first step in implementing the Preferred Vision for the SCS Dublin Project, which stemmed from an extensive City-led community outreach process focused on identifying appropriate land uses for one of the City’s last major undeveloped gateway sites.

The adopted vision emphasized creation of a pedestrian-oriented mixed-use district integrating housing, entertainment, retail, open space, and community gathering areas.

A key component of that vision was the creation of a neighborhood-serving commercial corridor along Finnian Way featuring small shops, restaurants, outdoor gathering spaces, and shophouses (residential units with ground-floor commercial space). The broader project also envisioned a regional entertainment district south of Dublin Boulevard intended to create a regional dining and entertainment destination.

On December 6, 2022 the City entered into a Development Agreement with SCS Development Company for the development of the property (Ordinance No. 15-22). The Development Agreement encompasses the entirety of the 76.2 acres; however, in accordance with Section

9.2.1 of the Development Agreement, a partial assignment and assumption was executed in May 2024 assigning a portion of the 76.2 acres from SCS Development Company to Landsea Homes of California LLC. Subsequently, in May 2025 New Home Co. acquired Landsea Homes, and merged the two entities into a new national brand under the name Risewell Homes.

The Development Agreement established vested development rights and project phasing requirements intended to ensure that the residential portions of the project would not wholly develop in advance of the commercial portions of the site. Specifically, Section 5.9.2 of the Development Agreement prohibited issuance of building permits for for-sale, market-rate residential units until improvement plans had been approved, bonds posted, and a building permit issued for construction of a non-residential building within the Finnian Way Commercial Area.

The phasing requirement was intended to support the City’s long-term vision for the site by ensuring that the commercial corridor would develop concurrently with the surrounding residential neighborhoods and would not be deferred indefinitely. On November 25, 2024 the City and the Applicant entered into a letter agreement to clarify how Section 5.9.2 would apply to the initial phase of construction. The clarification was intended to allow the first residential units and the first shophouse buildings to proceed together, recognizing that the shophouse buildings contain ground-floor commercial space and therefore advance the commercial corridor concurrently with the initial residential construction. The letter agreement was executed pursuant to Section 9.4 of the Development Agreement and allowed building permits to be issued for up to 74 for-sale, market-rate residential units in advance of a building permit for a non-residential building within the Finnian Way Commercial Area. The 74 units were required to include units within at least two shophouse buildings containing ground-floor retail condominium spaces, and the Applicant was required to continue making commercially reasonable efforts toward construction of the non-residential portions of the project. 1921

Page 3 of 4 ends

Market Conditions and Commercial Leasing Considerations As construction of the residential portions of the project has progressed, including backbone infrastructure, vertical construction of residential units, and two shophouse buildings within the Finnian Way Commercial Area, the Applicant has indicated that additional residential development, completed infrastructure, and surrounding site activation are needed to support the long-term success of the Finnian Way commercial corridor and strengthen tenant attraction and leasing activity. The Applicant has expressed that many commercial users prefer to lease space in projects where nearby residential neighborhoods, streets, utilities, landscaping, and surrounding vertical construction are substantially complete or actively occupied.

Staff acknowledges that the commercial portions of the project are intended to function as an integrated mixed-use environment rather than an isolated retail center. Completion of nearby residential development and supporting infrastructure is anticipated to help create a more complete and marketable commercial setting aligned with the original vision for the project.

Additional occupied residential units will help establish the customer base, activity levels, and market confidence necessary to support long-term commercial viability.

Proposed Amendment
The November 2024 letter agreement addressed phasing for the initial 74 residential units and the first shophouse buildings. The Applicant is now requesting approval of a First Amendment to the Development Agreement to address the broader phasing relationship between the residential neighborhoods and the full Finnian Way Commercial Area. The proposed amendment would allow the developer to pull building permits for up to 250 for-sale, marketrate residential units prior to issuance of building permits for the non-residential buildings within the Finnian Way Commercial Area. Prior to issuance of the 251st residential building permit, the developer would be required to pull building permits for all five approved non-residential buildings within the Finnian Way Commercial Area and continue making commercially reasonable efforts toward vertical construction of those buildings to saleable/leasable condition.

The 250-unit threshold represents half of the residential units approved for the project, and the trigger for the 251st permit is tied to building permits for all five approved non-residential buildings rather than a single non-residential building as required in the original agreement.

Staff believes the proposed amendment continues to uphold the City’s original intent of ensuring balanced development between the residential and commercial portions of the project while also responding to market realities associated with commercial leasing, tenant attraction, phased site development, and the need to further activate the site prior to full commercial buildout.

Planning Commission Review
The Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment at their regular meeting on May 26, 2026 and recommended approval.
1922

Page 4 of 4 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), on November 15, 2022 the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the SCS Dublin Project, which included up to 650 residential units, up to 265,000 square feet of retail commercial development and related infrastructure, and landscape improvements. The EIR included the following permits and approvals from the City of Dublin as part of the project:

General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone (Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan), Development Agreement, Tentative Tract Map(s) / Parcel Map(s), Site Development Review Permit(s), Grading and Improvement Plans and Building Permits. Upon approval of the SCS Dublin Project, the City Council adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 135-22).

The proposed project is within the scope of the project covered by the SCS Dublin EIR. The circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken have not substantially changed since the SCS Dublin EIR was prepared and will not substantially change with approval of the project. As supported by the project description, the proposed amendment to the Development Agreement, the EIR adequately describes the impacts of the project for the purposes of CEQA and no mitigation measures or new alternatives are required by the project other than those previously disclosed and analyzed in the SCS Dublin EIR. Approval of the amendment to the Development Agreement will not create any site‐specific operations giving rise to environmental effects different from those examined by the EIR or requiring the preparation of an Initial Study. The proposed project is subject to the SCS Dublin EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Consequently, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the project impacts are covered by the SCS Dublin EIR and no further environmental review is required for this project.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

In accordance with State law, a Public Notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject property. A Public Notice was also published in the East Bay Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. A copy of this Staff Report was posted on the City’s website and provided to the Applicant.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Ordinance Approving the First Amendment to the Development Agreement for the SCS Dublin Project Between the City of Dublin and Landsea Homes of California, LLC 2) Exhibit A to Ordinance – First Amendment to the Development Agreement for the SCS Dublin Project Between the City of Dublin and Landsea Homes of California, LLC 3) Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-05
1923
Ord. No. XX-26, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/26 Page 1 of 3
Attachment 1
ORDINANCE NO. XX - 26

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE SCS

DUBLIN PROJECT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND LANDSEA HOMES OF

CALIFORNIA, LLC
(PLPA-004414-2026)
(APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, and 985-0052-025) The Dublin City Council does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. RECITALS
A. The Applicant, Landsea Homes of California, LLC (now operating under the name of its parent company, Risewell Homes), is requesting to amend the Development Agreement with the City of Dublin for the SCS Dublin Project (aka Dublin Centre). The Dublin Centre Project site includes properties identified by Assessor Parcel Numbers 985-0051-004, 985-0051- 005, 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, and 985-0052-025, an approximately 76.2-acre site generally bound by Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive, Brannigan Street.

B. The Applicant is developing the 54-acre portion of the Dublin Centre project north Dublin Boulevard identified by Assessor Parcel Numbers 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, and 985- 0052-025. The Development Agreement encompasses the entirety of the 76.2-acre site; however, in accordance with Section 9.2.1 of the Development Agreement, a partial assignment was executed in May 2024 for the Development Agreement, which excluded New Homes from the obligations set forth in Section 8.1 Northside Drive and 8.2. Brannigan Street Extension. SCS Property retains those obligations. The requested approval or “Project” is a First Amendment to the Development Agreement.

C. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the CEQA Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. The project is the subject of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), State Clearinghouse No. 2022040022.

The proposed amendment to the Development Agreement does not result in any impacts beyond what was previously analyzed in the EIR.

D. The proposed First Amendment to the Development Agreement for the SCS Dublin Project is attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit A.

E. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed First Amendment to the Development Agreement on May 26, 2026, for which public notice was given by law.

F. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Development Agreement for the SCS Dublin Project by Resolution No. 05-26. 1924
Ord. No. XX-26, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/26 Page 2 of 3
G. A public hearing on the proposed First Amendment to the Development Agreement was held before the City Council on June 16, 2026, for which public notice was given as provided by law.

I. The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission, including the Planning Commission’s reasons for its recommendation, the Agenda Statement, all comments received in writing, and all testimony received at the public hearing.

SECTION 2: FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS
Therefore, on the basis of: (a) the foregoing Recitals which are incorporated herein, (b) the City of Dublin General Plan; (c) the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, (d) the SCS Dublin Project EIR; (e) the Staff Report; (f) information in the entire record of proceeding for the Project, and on the basis of the specific conclusions set forth below, the City Council finds and determines that:

A. The First Amendment to the Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified and contained in the City’s General Plan, and in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan in that: (a) the First Amendment to the Development Agreement incorporates the objectives policies, general land uses and programs in the General Plan and Specific Plan and does not amend or modify them; and (b) the Project is consistent with the fiscal policies of the General Plan and Specific Plan with respect to the provision of infrastructure and public services.

B. The First Amendment to the Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use districts in which the real property is located because the Development Agreement does not amend the uses or regulations in the applicable land use district.

C. The First Amendment to the Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare, and good land use policies in that the Developer’s Project will implement land use guidelines set forth in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the General Plan as articulated in Resolution No. 136-22, amending the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, adopted by the City Council on November 15, 2022.

D. The First Amendment to the Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare in that the Developer’s proposed Project will proceed in accordance with all the programs and policies of the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and future Project Approvals and any Conditions of Approval.

E. The First Amendment to the Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values in that the project will be consistent with the General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and future project approvals.

F. The First Amendment to the Development Agreement specifies the duration of the agreement, the permitted uses of the property, and the obligations of the Applicant. The First Amendment to the Development Agreement contains an indemnity and insurance clause requiring the developer to indemnify and hold the City harmless against claims arising out of the development process, including all legal fees and costs.

SECTION 3. APPROVAL
1925
Ord. No. XX-26, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/26 Page 3 of 3
The City Council hereby approves the First Amendment to the Development Agreement for the SCS Dublin Project (Exhibit A to the Ordinance) and authorizes the City Manager to execute it.

SECTION 4. RECORDATION
Within ten (10) days after the First Amendment to the Development Agreement for the SCS Dublin Project is fully executed by all parties, the City Clerk shall submit the Agreement to the County Recorder for recordation.

SECTION 5. POSTING OF ORDINANCE
The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three public spaces in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California.

SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days following its adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this ___ day of ____________, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_____________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
City Clerk
1926
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

CITY OF DUBLIN
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City Clerk
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Fee Waived per GC 27383
Space above this line for Recorderʼs use

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

FOR THE SCS DUBLIN PROJECT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AND

LANDSEA HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, LLC
Attachment 2
Exhibit A to Ordinance
1927
1 THIS AMENDMENT (“Amendment”) is made and entered in the City of Dublin on this _________, 2026 by and between the City of Dublin, a Municipal Corporation (hereafter “City”) and Landsea Homes of California, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (hereafter “Developer”), pursuant to the authority of §§65864 et seq. of the California Government Code and Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 8.56. City and Developer are from time-to-time individually referred to in this Amendment as a “Party” and are collectively referred to as “Parties.”

RECITALS
A. California Government Code §§ 65864 et seq. and Chapter 8.56 of the Dublin Municipal Code (hereafter “Chapter 8.56”) authorize the City to enter into an agreement for the development of real property with any person having a legal or equitable interest in such property in order to establish certain development rights in such property; and B. Pursuant to that authority, City and Award Homes, Inc., a California corporation (“Award”), SCS Development Company, a California corporation (“SCS Development”), and Santa Clara Valley Housing Group, Inc., a California corporation (“SCV Housing”) entered into that certain “Development Agreement for the SCS Dublin Project” dated December 6, 2022 and recorded in the Official Records of Alameda County (“Official Records”) on January 19, 2023 as document number 2023005968 (“the Agreement”), regarding that certain real property legally described in Exhibit A to the Agreement.

C. In 2024, Award, SCS Development, and SCV Housing partially assigned, as to Assessors Parcel Nos. 985-51-6, 985-52-24, and 985-52-25, the Agreement to Developer. The property so assigned (the “Assigned Parcels”) is legally described in Exhibit A to this Amendment.

D. Amendments to the Agreement are permitted by the mutual consent of the Parties in accordance with Article 9 of the Agreement and by the Development Agreement Statues; and
E. Pursuant to Section 4.2 of the Agreement, the Term of the Agreement commenced upon the Approval Date and will continue for a period of five (5) years unless otherwise terminated, extended, or modified by the terms of the Agreement; and F. As this First Amendment pertains only to the Remainder Property, the City and Developer are the only parties required to effect the amendment. 1928
2 NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing recitals and in consideration of the mutual promises, obligations and covenants contained herein, City and Developer agree as follows:

Section 1. Section 5.9, Project Phasing, of the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“5.9 Project Phasing. The Property will develop in phases and ultimately will be subject to market conditions. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, Developer agrees to the following conditions on phasing shall apply:

5.9.1 Phase 1 will consist of site preparation and mass grading of the entire Project site.

5.9.2 Phase 2 is composed of the horizontal development (e.g., construction of streets, utilities, etc.) and vertical construction of the Project, which will happen in subphases across all of the Project's Planning Areas. However, to ensure that the residential portions of the Project do not wholly develop in advance of the retail/commercial portions, the following restrictions are imposed on the issuance of permits: building permits for no more than 250 for-sale, market rate residential units shall be issued on any portion of the Project site until improvement plans have been approved, bonds posted, and building permits have been issued for construction of the five non-residential buildings within the Finnian Way Commercial area in Planning Area 2c (as defined, described, and depicted in the PD). Developer shall, once such permits are issued, make commercially reasonable efforts to commence and continue vertical construction of such non-residential buildings to occupancy authorization.”
Section 2. Full Force and Effect. Except as specifically clarified, confirmed or modified herein, the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect according to its terms.

Section 3. Defined Terms. Defined terms have the same meaning in this Amendment as in the Agreement unless otherwise specified.

Section 4. Effective Date of Amendment. This Amendment shall become effective upon the date the ordinance approving this Amendment becomes effective.

Section 5. Recordation. City shall record a copy of this Amendment within ten (10) days following execution by all Parties.
[Signature Block on Following Page]
1929
1930
4 Exhibit “A”
Legal Description of Assigned Parcels
Real property in the City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California, described as follows:

PARCEL ONE:

PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 9512, FILED JUNE 23, 2008 IN BOOK 308, PAGES 13 THROUGH 18, INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL MAPS, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECRODS.

PARCEL TWO:

PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP 9512, FILED JUNE 23, 2008 IN BOOK 308, PAGES 13 THROUGH 18, INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL MAPS, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS.

PARCEL THREE:

PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP 9512, FILED JUNE 23, 2008 IN BOOK 308, PAGES 13 THROUGH 18, INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL MAPS, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS.

APN: 985-0051-006 (AFFECTS: PARCEL ONE); 985-0052-024 (AFFECTS: PARCEL TWO) AND 985-0052-025 (AFFECTS: PARCEL THREE)
1931
Reso. No. 26-05, Item 6.1, Adopted 05/26/2026 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 26-05

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE SCS DUBLIN PROJECT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN

AND LANDSEA HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, LLC
(PLPA-004414-2026)
(APNS 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, AND 985-0052-025) WHEREAS, the Applicant, Landsea Homes of California, LLC (now operating under the name of its parent company, Risewell Homes), is requesting to amend the Development Agreement with the City of Dublin for the SCS Dublin Project (aka Dublin Centre). The Dublin Centre Project site includes properties identified by Assessor Parcel Numbers 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051- 006, 985-0052-024, and 985-0052-025, an approximately 76.2-acre site generally bound by Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive, Brannigan Street; and
WHEREAS, Applicant is developing the 54-acre portion of the Dublin Centre project north Dublin Boulevard identified by Assessor Parcel Numbers 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, and 985- 0052-025. The Development Agreement encompasses the entirety of the 76.2-acre; however, in accordance with Section 9.2.1 of the Development Agreement, a partial assignment was executed in May 2024 for the Development Agreement, which excluded New Homes Co from the obligations set forth in Section 8.1 Northside Drive and 8.2. Brannigan Street Extension. SCS Property retains s a First Amendment to the Development
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the CEQA Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures, the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated July 2022, and a Final EIR dated October 2022, for the proposed Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2022040022), potential
environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the Development Agreement does not result in any impacts beyond what was previously analyzed in the EIR; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated May 26, 2026, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the First Amendment to the Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, on May 26, 2026, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard.

Attachment 3
1932
Reso. No. 26-05, Item 6.1, Adopted 05/26/2026 Page 2 of 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission recommends that the City Council certify the EIR for the SCS Dublin Project.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt an Ordinance attached as Exhibit A approving a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and SCS Development Company based on findings, as set forth in Exhibit A. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin on this 26th day of May, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES: Prasath, Simuro, Rashid
NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN: Badami, Han
ATTEST: ______________________________
Planning Commission Chair
___________________________________ Planning Manager
1933
Dublin Centre DA
Amendment
City Council
June 16, 2026
1934
Background
• SCS Dublin Project (Dublin Centre)
• 76 acres
• 54 acres by Landsea Homes
• SCS Dublin Project – 2022
• General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendment
• Planned Development Rezone
• Development Agreement
• Environmental Impact Report
1935
Development Agreement
• Approved by City Council December 6, 2022
• Ordinance No. 15-22
• Section 5.9 – Project Phasing
• Phase 1 – Site Preparation and Mass Grading
• Phase 2 – Site Improvements and Vertical Construction • No full residential build-out before commercial
• Residential building permits tied to commercial retail buildings along Finnian Way
• Section 16 – Transfers and Assignments
• SCS Dublin Company to Landsea Homes of California, LLC 1936
Development Agreement Amendment
• Market Conditions and Commercial Leasing Considerations • Section 5.9 – Project Phasing
• Maximum of 250 market rate residential units prior to non-residential buildings along Finnian Way
• Building permits for all five commercial buildings
• Reasonable efforts toward vertical construction/occupancy 1937
Planning Commission Review
• May 26, 2026 Public Hearing
• Recommendation of approval to City Council
• Resolution No. 26-05
• Consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan • Does not amend the uses or regulations of the PD zoning • Is not detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare • Does not adversely affect orderly development of property • Does not adversely affect preservation of property values 1938
Recommendation
Conduct a public hearing, deliberate, waive the reading, and introduce an Ordinance Approving a First Amendment to the Development Agreement for the SCS Dublin Project Between the City of Dublin and Landsea Homes of California, LLC.
1939
1940
Agenda Item 8.1

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Page 1 of 5 ends

DATE: June 16, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Colleen Tribby, City Manager
SUBJECT: Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Plan
Prepared by: Shannan Young, Environmental & Sustainability Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will receive a report and consider approving the Electric Vehicle (EV) Infrastructure Plan in support of Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond (CAP 2030). The EV Infrastructure Plan fulfills CAP 2030 Sustainable Mobility and Land Use Measure 2: Develop an Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Plan, providing a comprehensive strategy for expanding publicly accessible EV charging infrastructure to promote EV adoption and help to achieve the City’s long-term greenhouse gas reduction goals.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the report and adopt the Resolution Approving the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Plan and Finding the Plan Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

All Staff and consultant costs associated with preparation of the EV Infrastructure Plan are funded by the Climate Action Plan Reserve and in accordance with the annual operating budget. Any improvement projects implementing the proposed recommendations in the EV Infrastructure Plan will be brought to the City Council in the future with a recommendation for funding.

DESCRIPTION:

Background
The City Council adopted Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond (CAP 2030) on September 15, 2020 (Resolution No. 100-20) establishing a framework to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. CAP 2030 identified transportation emissions as the largest contributor to citywide greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for 63 1941

Page 2 of 5 ends

percent of total emissions as of the latest GHG emissions inventory conducted in 2022.

Transportation electrification measures in CAP 2030 intended to facilitate electric vehicle (EV) adoption include:
 Measure SM-1, Adopt an Electric Vehicle Charging Station Ordinance  Measure SM-2, Develop an Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Plan The City Council has consistently adopted voluntary California Green Building Code (CALGreen) Tier II building codes for EV infrastructure as mandatory, including the most recent code cycle which was effective on January 1, 2026. While CALGreen codes require installation of EV charging infrastructure at development projects, the City will not be able to achieve the 2045 carbon neutrality goal by implementing the code alone. The purpose of the EV Infrastructure Plan is to identify strategies for deploying additional charging infrastructure that accelerates EV adoption while ensuring equitable access throughout the community.

Summary of the EV Infrastructure Plan
Key sections and recommendations of the Plan are summarized below.

EV Charging Station Infrastructure Needs
The Dublin community currently has one of the highest rates of EV adoption in California, with more than 9,200 registered EV and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles as of the end of 2024.

However, community outreach and technical analysis conducted as part of this Plan development identified limited charging infrastructure and range anxiety as key barriers to continued EV adoption.

To determine EV charging station infrastructure needs, the Plan considered statewide and Dublin CAP 2030 scenarios for EV ownership goals by certain target years (Table 1).

Statewide scenarios are based on the California Energy Commission (CEC) forecast that 847,700 Level 2 charging ports and 39,300 Direct Current Fast Charger (DCFC) ports are needed in California to facilitate 7.1 million EVs by 2030, and that 1,834,300 Level 2 chargers and 82,600 DCFCs will be needed to support a statewide goal of 15.2 million EVs by 2035.

The scenarios presented in the Plan that align with state projections are scaled to Dublinspecific infrastructure needs based on population and statewide EV ownership goals (23 percent by 2030 and 50 percent by 2035). CAP 2030 scenarios include a goal of 33 percent EV ownership in Dublin by 2030 and a 100 percent EV ownership target in 2045 to facilitate meeting the carbon neutrality goal. The 100 percent target does not mean that there will be no internal combustion vehicles in Dublin in 2045; rather the aim is that 100 percent of new vehicles purchased in 2045 and beyond will be zero emission vehicles such as electric vehicles.
1942

Page 3 of 5 ends

Table 1. Electric Vehicle Charging Station (EVCS) Port Targets, High DCFC Pathway Target
Year
Scenario
EV
Registration
Target
Level 2
EVCS
Port
Target
DCFC
Port
Target
Total Installed
Level 2 Ports
(March 2026)
Total Installed
DCFC Ports
(March 2026)
Level
2 Gap
DCF
C
Gap
2030
(State)
18,536
(23% EVs)
387 389 222 78 165 311
2030
(Dublin
CAP)
20,148
(33% EVs)
420 423 222 78 198 345
2035
(State)
42,164
(50% EVs)
884 888 222 78 662 810
2045
(Dublin
CAP)
68,929
(100% EVs)
1,446 1,451 222 78 1,224 1,373
Table 1 shows the number of DCFC and Level 2 ports needed by the various target dates assuming a higher proportion of DCFCs are installed enabling drivers to fuel their vehicles relatively quickly compared to Level 2 chargers. Since DCFC can recharge vehicles more quickly, fewer chargers are needed to support a given population of EVs. The CEC estimates that one Level 2 charger can support six EVs, whereas one DCFC can support 42 EVs. The Plan also includes scenarios for high Level 2 charger installations compared to DCFC chargers and a scenario in which Level 2 chargers and DCFCs installations are more balanced.

Suitability Analysis for Public and Private Charging Locations A citywide suitability analysis was conducted to identify priority locations for EV charging station (EVCS) infrastructure. The purpose of the analysis was to determine where EVCS should be optimally located to equitably meet demand. Evaluation criteria and a scoring matrix were developed based on community stakeholder feedback and industry experience. Priority areas include high-density residential and employment areas, job training and education facilities, and commercial areas suitable for morning or midday charging. The suitability analysis identified 13 high ranking private sites that potentially could include up to 36 DCFC and 156 Level 2 EVCS. City-owned locations were also ranked in the analysis which provides a potential prioritization method for future City projects.

Site Evaluations and Concept Plans for City Owned Sites City-owned sites were reviewed to determine what EVCS may be installed at each location and concept plans were developed based on the review. The evaluation included factoring parking lot size, average expected dwell time of vehicles, existing EVCS in the parking lot, spare building energy capacity (as applicable), available estimated grid capacity, and Staff feedback. If all potential EVCS were installed at City owned sites, an additional 150 Level 2 chargers and 36 DCFC could be installed at an estimated cost of $21,425,000. These chargers would supplement the existing publicly accessible 44 Level 2 EVCS and 4 DCFC installed on City property.

A financial analysis for the conceptual EVCS projects was completed to evaluate cost recovery options for the EVCS installations. A pricing analysis was conducted to determine what rates 1943

Page 4 of 5 ends

would need to be charged to customers under four rate scenarios, including: 1) fee for electricity only, 2) fee for electricity and networking fees, 3) fee for electricity, networking, and maintenance, and 4) fee for electricity, networking, maintenance, and construction.

Based on a review of nearby average EVCS charging rates, the analysis showed that the City could reasonably charge enough to cover ongoing costs (i.e., electricity, networking, and maintenance costs) and still be cost competitive; however, if the City elected to pursue full cost recovery and charge rates to recoup construction costs, the rates would exceed average area pricing and may discourage the public from utilizing the chargers. There is potential for grants to offset a portion of construction costs, and having a plan with shovel ready concept designs positions the City to be competitive for future funding opportunities as they arise.

EV Ownership and Maintenance Models
Four EV infrastructure ownership models are reviewed, providing a breakdown of the benefits and drawbacks of each model including financial risk and staff time involved. The four ownership models reviewed include host owned, vendor owned, hybrid host/vendor owned, and charging as a service. The Plan also contemplates partnering with Ava Community Energy (Ava), the City’s electric power provider, to install DCFCs.

Funding Opportunities
Grants and incentive opportunities are listed in the Plan, and tracking tools are identified. Two potential funding sources identified in the Plan include the California Energy Commission CALeVIP which provides rebates for EVCS and the California Air Resources Board Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) program. Dublin currently generates LCFS credits that have been banked for future sale; however, selling these credits on the open market would require engaging a broker to aggregate and market them. Staff will explore this option more fully when enough credits have been banked to fund an identified operational program or infrastructure project.

Policy Considerations and Next Steps
Recommendations identified in the Plan include the following:
 Evaluate the role of City ownership. City ownership of EVCS has provided full control and it has also highlighted operational challenges. Installing and managing ongoing operations of EVCS is staff-time intensive. It is likely that additional staff will be needed to appropriately manage City-owned EV infrastructure if the City continues to significantly add to its EVCS inventory. Considering alternative means of augmenting EVCS infrastructure, such as thirdparty ownership or partnering with Ava Community Energy, should be further considered.  Expand EVCS at Key City Sites. Continue to install EVCS at high priority municipal locations, with a preference for third party owned facilities, if possible.  Explore curbside charging feasibility. Conduct a focused assessment to determine if curbside charging is an option in Dublin.
 Engage private sector partners. Share the site suitability analysis with property owners identified in the site suitability analysis to inform them of their high-scoring site and connect them with third party EVCS vendors to reduce site host capital needs. 1944

Page 5 of 5 ends

 Prepare for funding and incentive opportunities. Proactively prepare for funding opportunities by further developing concept plans.
 Review LCFS credits. Evaluate and determine appropriate uses for LCFS credits and engage a broker to facilitate sale of the credits.
 Continue to implement CALGreen reach codes. Continue to adopt CALGreen Tier 2 codes as mandatory, to enable a built-in pathway for expanding EV infrastructure.

The Plan also includes suggested timelines, estimated staffing resources, and prioritizes the recommendations listed above.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The EV Infrastructure Plan is a planning-level policy document intended to provide guidance for future EV infrastructure deployment throughout the City. The Plan does not authorize or approve any specific construction projects or physical improvements. Future EV charging infrastructure projects would undergo separate project level environmental review, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), prior to implementation. Accordingly, this Plan is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15262, which exempts feasibility and planning studies for possible future actions that have not yet been approved or funded. In addition, future implementation projects may qualify for separate categorical exemptions depending on the scope and nature of the proposed improvements.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

Strategy 5: Long-Term Infrastructure and Sustainability Investments.

Objective C: Continue to make progress on the Climate Action Plan and sustainable operations.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The City Council Agenda was posted.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution Approving the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Plan and Finding the Plan Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
2) Exhibit A to the Resolution - Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Plan 3) Resolution No. 100-20 Adopting the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond 1945
Attachment 1
Reso. No. XX-26, Item X.X, Adopted 06/16/2026 Page 1 of 1 RESOLUTION NO. XX – 26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

APPROVING THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN AND FINDING THE PLAN

EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2020 the City Council adopted Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond (CAP 2030) which includes 22 measures that if implemented, are intended to put the City on the path to reach carbon neutrality by 2045; and
WHEREAS, transportation emissions comprise over 60 percent of citywide greenhouse gas emissions; and
WHEREAS, CAP 2030 Measure SM-2, Develop an Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Plan, is intended to guide the installation of additional electric vehicle infrastructure in Dublin to facilitate the transition to zero-emission electric vehicles; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) certain projects require review for environmental impacts and, when applicable, environmental documents to be prepared; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the Plan was examined to determine if environmental review is required. The analysis concluded that the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Plan is exempt from review pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15262, which exempts feasibility and planning studies for future actions that have not yet been approved or funded.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby adopt the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Plan (Exhibit A).

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 16th day of June, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
1946
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Plan
June 2026
Prepared for the City of Dublin
by Willdan Energy Solutions
Attachment 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
1947
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Executive Summary..............................................................................................................................7

2. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................10

2.1 City of Dublin Climate Action Plan.....................................................................................................10

2.2 Environmental Benefits.....................................................................................................................11

2.3 EV Charger Types Overview ..............................................................................................................15

2.4 Typical EVCS Costs.............................................................................................................................16

3. Policy Review......................................................................................................................................20

3.1 California’s EV Goals..........................................................................................................................20

3.2 AB 1236 and AB 970 ..........................................................................................................................21

3.3 Building Code and Reach Codes........................................................................................................22

3.4 California Civil Code 1947.6...............................................................................................................22

4. EV Charging Station Infrastructure Needs .........................................................................................24

4.1 Existing Infrastructure .......................................................................................................................24

4.2 Future Needs.....................................................................................................................................24

4.3 Planned and Potential Infrastructure................................................................................................28

4.4 Closing the Gap..................................................................................................................................29

5. Suitability Analysis..............................................................................................................................31

5.1 Approach and Scoring .......................................................................................................................31

5.2 Suitability Analysis Top Scoring Private Sites....................................................................................34

6. Site Evaluations for City-Owned Sites................................................................................................36

6.1 City Owned Sites................................................................................................................................36

6.2 Concept Project Layouts....................................................................................................................39

6.3 Financial Analysis of City-Owned EVCS .............................................................................................45

6.4 Curbside Charging .............................................................................................................................49

7. Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement............................................................................................52

7.1 Dublin EV Adoption Survey ...............................................................................................................52

7.2 Community Events ............................................................................................................................53

8. EV Ownership and Maintenance Models...........................................................................................54

8.1 EV Infrastructure Ownership Models................................................................................................54

8.2 Charger Maintenance........................................................................................................................58

9. Funding Opportunities.......................................................................................................................60

9.1 Alternative Fuels Data Center ...........................................................................................................60

9.2 Direct Incentives and Rebates...........................................................................................................61 1948
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan iii

10. Policy Considerations and Next Steps................................................................................................63 Projected Needs and Long-Term Vision..................................................................................................63 Recommended Next Steps......................................................................................................................64

11. Conclusion..........................................................................................................................................67 References ..................................................................................................................................................68 Appendices..................................................................................................................................................71 Appendix A – Suitability Analysis Results....................................................................................................72 Appendix B – Compiled Conceptual Layouts..............................................................................................73 Appendix C – Financial Analysis for Concept Layouts.................................................................................74 Appendix D – Selected Policy Review .........................................................................................................87 AB1236 and AB970..................................................................................................................................87 Building Code and Reach Codes..............................................................................................................88 CA Civil Code 1947.6................................................................................................................................88 Appendix E – Estimating Average $/GGE Health Benefit in Dublin, CA......................................................90 Appendix F – EV Readiness Plan Survey Results.........................................................................................92 Appendix G – PG&E/Ava Rate Schedules....................................................................................................95 Typical Commercial Electric Rate Schedules...........................................................................................95 EV-Specific Rate Schedules......................................................................................................................95

TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1. City of Dublin 2015 GHG Emission Inventory by Sector (Metric Tons CO2e)...............................10 Figure 2. Change in PM2.5 by 2035, Particulate Matter Concentration 2.5 Microns or Less in Diameter (µg m-3).............................................................................................................................................................13 Figure 3. Estimated Dollar Value of Air Quality Benefits in Dublin from EV Adoption...............................14 Figure 4. Electric Vehicle Charging Overview .............................................................................................15 Figure 5. Advanced Clean Cars II Proposed ZEV Sales Requirements.........................................................20 Figure 6. EV Share of Total US Passenger Car Sales....................................................................................21 Figure 7. EVCS Permit Process and Timeline Per AB 1236 and AB 970 ......................................................22 Figure 8. PlugShare Overview of EVCS near Dublin....................................................................................24 Figure 9. Sample Layout with 2 EV Chargers and 1 Van Accessible Stall....................................................44 Figure 10. Sample Layout with 5 EV Chargers, 1 Van Accessible Stall, and 1 Standard Accessible Stall ....45 Figure 11 - Curbside EVCS on Utility Pole ...................................................................................................50 Figure 12. EV Survey Feedback ...................................................................................................................52 Figure 13. EV Posterboards Used During Outreach Events ........................................................................53 Figure 14. U.S. Public EVCS Charging Issues Over Time..............................................................................58 Figure 15. AFDC EV Incentive Search and Filter Feature ............................................................................60 Figure 16. Ava's Incentive Finder................................................................................................................61 Figure 17. EVCS Survey Result – Stakeholders............................................................................................92 Figure 18. EVCS Survey Result – EV Ownership..........................................................................................92 Figure 19. EVCS Survey Result – EV Incentive Awareness..........................................................................93 1949
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan iv
Figure 20. EVCS Survey Result – EV Ownership..........................................................................................93 Figure 21. EVCS Survey Result – EV Ownership..........................................................................................93 Figure 22. EVCS Survey Result – EV Ownership..........................................................................................94 Figure 23. EVCS Survey Result – EV Ownership..........................................................................................94 Figure 24. EVCS Survey Result – EV Ownership..........................................................................................94 Figure 25. PG&E BEV Rate Tariff .................................................................................................................96

TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1. Dublin EVCS Targets to Support State and CAP EV Ownership Goals Under Different Infrastructure Pathways................................................................................................................................7 Table 2. Meeting the 2030 EVCS CAP Target Gap (High DCFC Pathway)......................................................8 Table 3. City of Dublin EV Ownership Scenarios.........................................................................................11 Table 4. Emission Reduction Potential in Dublin due to EV Adoption........................................................12 Table 5. Overview of Charging Types and Typical Costs.............................................................................16 Table 6. CEC 2030 and 2035 Statewide EVCS Port Targets.........................................................................24 Table 7. EV Charger Port Targets, CEC Estimated/High Level 2 Pathway Scaled for Dublin.......................25 Table 8. 2030 and 2035 Statewide CEC Gas Station Model, Mixed Level 2 and DCFC Charger Estimates.26 Table 9. EVCS Port Targets, Gas Station Model, Mixed L2/DCFC Scaled for Dublin ...................................27 Table 10. 2030 and 2035 Statewide High DCFC Charger Port Targets .......................................................27 Table 11. EVCS Port Targets, High DCFC Pathway Scaled for Dublin..........................................................28 Table 12. Potential EVCS Opportunities to Meet the City’s 2030 CAP Goals .............................................30 Table 13. Potential EVCS Opportunities to Meet the City’s 2045 CAP Goals .............................................30 Table 14. Point Values for Scoring Criterion...............................................................................................31 Table 15. Scoring Matrix .............................................................................................................................32 Table 16. Top Scoring Sites From Suitability Analysis.................................................................................35 Table 17. Public EVCS at City Owned Sites..................................................................................................36 Table 18. Conceptual Project Cost Estimates .............................................................................................40 Table 19. Conceptual Project Cost Estimates Breakdowns ........................................................................40 Table 20. EVCS Design Guidelines and Concept Plans Assumptions ..........................................................41 Table 21. EVCS ADA Requirements.............................................................................................................44 Table 22. Civic Center EVCS Project Cash Flow Analysis.............................................................................46 Table 23. Sensitivity Analysis For Civic Center EVCS, 10-Yr. Cash Flow ......................................................47 Table 24. Pricing Analysis for EV Charger Projects......................................................................................48 Table 25. EV Ownership Models.................................................................................................................54 Table 26. EVCS Funding opportunities........................................................................................................61 Table 27. Dublin EVCS Targets for all Scenarios and Pathways..................................................................63 Table 28. EVCS Opportunities Towards Meeting the City 2045 CAP Goals................................................63 Table 29. City of Dublin EVCS Next Steps....................................................................................................65 Table 30. Dublin Library EVCS Project Cash Flow Analysis .........................................................................74 Table 31. Sensitivity Analysis For Dublin Library EVCS, 10-Yr. Cash Flow...................................................74 Table 32. Corp Yard EVCS Project Cash Flow Analysis................................................................................75 Table 33. Sensitivity Analysis For Corp Yard EVCS, 10-Yr. Cash Flow..........................................................75 Table 34. Senior Center EVCS Project Cash Flow Analysis..........................................................................76 Table 35. Sensitivity Analysis For Senior Center EVCS, 10-Yr. Cash Flow ...................................................76 1950
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan v
Table 36. Shannon Park EVCS Project Cash Flow Analysis..........................................................................77 Table 37. Shannon Park For Civic Center EVCS, 10-Yr. Cash Flow ..............................................................77 Table 38. Fire Station 16 EVCS Project Cash Flow Analysis.........................................................................78 Table 39. Sensitivity Analysis For Fire Station 16 EVCS, 10-Yr. Cash Flow..................................................78 Table 40. Fire Station 17 EVCS Project Cash Flow Analysis.........................................................................79 Table 41. Sensitivity Analysis For Fire Station 17 EVCS, 10-Yr. Cash Flow..................................................79 Table 42. Fire Station 18 EVCS Project Cash Flow Analysis.........................................................................80 Table 43. Sensitivity Analysis For Fire Station 18 EVCS, 10-Yr. Cash Flow..................................................80 Table 44. Dublin Sports Ground EVCS Project Cash Flow Analysis.............................................................81 Table 45. Sensitivity Analysis For Dublin Sports Ground EVCS, 10-Yr. Cash Flow ......................................81 Table 46. Emerald Glen Park EVCS Project Cash Flow Analysis..................................................................82 Table 47. Sensitivity Analysis For Emerald Glen Park EVCS, 10-Yr. Cash Flow............................................82 Table 48. The Wave EVCS Project Cash Flow Analysis................................................................................83 Table 49. Sensitivity Analysis For The Wave EVCS, 10-Yr. Cash Flow .........................................................83 Table 50. Fallon Sports Park Upper EVCS Project Cash Flow Analysis........................................................84 Table 51. Sensitivity Analysis For Fallon Sports Park Upper EVCS, 10-Yr. Cash Flow .................................84 Table 52. Fallon Sports Park Lower EVCS Project Cash Flow Analysis........................................................85 Table 53. Sensitivity Analysis For Fallon Sports Park Lower EVCS, 10-Yr. Cash Flow .................................85 Table 54. Alamo Creek Park EVCS Project Cash Flow Analysis ...................................................................86 Table 55. Sensitivity Analysis For Alamo Creek Park EVCS, 10-Yr. Cash Flow.............................................86 Table 56. GGE Fuel Conversions .................................................................................................................90 Table 57. Total Fuel Usage in the BAAD Region..........................................................................................90 Table 58. Monetary Value of Health Benefits from GGE Reductions.........................................................91 1951
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan vi
List of Acronyms
Acronym Definition Acronym Definition
AC Alternating Current EVCS electric vehicle charging station ACC II Advanced Clean Cars II GCs General Conditions
ADA Accessibility and Disability Act GGE gasoline gallon equivalent AFCs Alternative Fuel Corridors GHG Greenhouse Gas
AFDC Alternative Fuels Data Center GM General Motors
AHJ Authority Having Jurisdiction GWP Global Warming Potential Ava Ava Community Energy kVa kilovolt-amperes
BESS battery energy storage system kW kilowatt
BMR Below Market Rate L2 Level 2
Caas Charging as a Service LCFS Low carbon Fuel Standard CAC Cultural Arts Center MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization CAL
Green California Green Building Code MFD Multi-Family Dwelling CAP Climate Action Plan NACS North American Charging Standard CARB California Air Resources Board NEVI National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure CCA Community Choice Aggregator N2O Nitrous Oxide
CCS Combined Charging Standard NOx nitrogen oxides
CEC California Energy Commission O&M Operation and Maintenance CH4 Methane PHEV Plug In Hybrid Vehicle
CO2 Carbon Dioxide PM particulate matter
CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent PM2.5
particulate matter smaller than 2.5
microns
CRA Congressional Review Act POT path of travel
CU stranded copper PV Photovoltaics
DCFC Direct Current Fast Charger PVC polyvinyl Chloride Conduit DOE Department of Energy RFP Request for Proposals
du/ac dwelling units per acre RFQ Request for Qualifications E3 Energy, Environment, and
Economics
RMC rigid metal conduit
EMT electrical metal tubing TOU Time of Use
EO Executive Order VMT Vehicle Miles Travelled
EV electric vehicle ZEV Zero emission vehicle
1952
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 7

1. Executive Summary
This EV Infrastructure Plan (Plan) provides a detailed analysis of the current state of electric vehicle charging infrastructure in the City of Dublin (City) and provides recommendations for how the City can prepare to meet future charging demands. This Plan fulfills Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond (CAP) Measure SM-2, Develop an Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Plan. The intent of Measure SM-2 is to plan where and how to site additional electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS)1 to facilitate the transition to electric vehicles and provide the highest benefit to the community. The regulatory environment in California is expected to significantly drive EV adoption in the State of California (State) and in Dublin. This Plan is intended to provide guidance on how the City can best support developing EVCS. Key takeaways and recommendations include:
• Dublin boasts one of the highest levels of EV adoption in California, with over 9,200 registered electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) as of the end of 2024, the most recent data available at the time of this report. • Although EV adoption is high in Dublin, key barriers to additional EV adoption include the limited charging infrastructure and range anxiety, as determined through community outreach and engagement efforts.
• As of March 2026, 222 Level 2 (L2) ports and 78 Direct Current Fast Charger (DCFC) ports are publicly available in Dublin.
• This Plan considers statewide and Dublin CAP scenarios for EV ownership goals by certain target years and analyzed how different combinations of Level 2 EVCS and DCFCs could support those EV goals (Table 1). To meet the City’s CAP goals, the City may need between 843 and 2,517 publicly accessible EVCS by 2030 and between 2,897 and 8,692 publicly accessible EVCS to support the 2045 carbon neutrality goal. (See Section 4.2 for more information).

Table 1. Dublin EVCS Targets to Support State and CAP EV Ownership Goals Under Different Infrastructure Pathways
Year and Scenario
CEC* Estimated/
High Level 2 Pathway
CEC Gas Station/Mixed
Level 2-DCFC Pathway
High DCFC
Pathway
Level 2 DCFC Level 2 DCFC Level 2 DCFC
2030 California Target 2,213 103 1,163 267 387 389
2030 Dublin CAP Target 2,405 112 1,264 290 420 423
2035 California Target 5,088 229 2,055 475 884 888
2045 Dublin CAP Target 8,318 374 3,359 777 1,446 1,451
*CEC means California Energy Commission
• This Plan primarily evaluates infrastructure required for the High DCFC Pathway to inform future EVCS development and long-term targets. One DCFC port can support more vehicles than Level 2 ports and the community identified fast charging as a priority (see Section 7 and Appendix F). This Plan identifies several EVCS opportunities to begin addressing the EVCS infrastructure targets. If all identified opportunities are developed, as discussed below, it would exceed the 2030 Level 2 EVCS targets and meet 21% of the remaining 2030 DCFC gap as shown in Table 2.
1 For the purposes of this Plan, one EVCS is defined as one charging port. 1953
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 8
Table 2. Meeting the 2030 EVCS CAP Target Gap (High DCFC Pathway) Project Type L2 Opportunity L2 GAP % of
Gap*
DCFC
Opportunity
DCFC
Gap
% of
Gap*
Current
Developments 90 EVCS Capable 198 45% 0 345 0%
City Owned Sites 150 198 76% 36 345 10%
High Scoring
Private Sites 156 198 79% 36 345 10%
Total 396 198 200% 72 345 21%
*may not sum due to rounding
EVCS opportunities in Dublin include the following:
• Current Development Projects. Proposed multifamily and commercial projects under development in the City may add approximately 90 Level 2 EVCS capable stalls, addressing approximately 45% of the 2030 CAP Level 2 EVCS gap if all ports are eventually installed. • City Owned Sites. It is estimated that 150 Level 2 EVCS ports and 36 DCFC ports could be installed at City owned parking lots, which would address 76% of the 2030 CAP Level 2 EVCS gap and 10% of the 2030 DCFC gap. Implementing these projects could cost $21.5M2 (before funding opportunities), if the City owned and operated all the EVCS (refer to Section 6). • High Scoring Private Sites. A city-wide suitability analysis identified potential private sites for EVCS. If the top scoring sites were developed, 156 Level 2 EVCS and 36 DCFCs could be added, addressing 79% of the 2030 CAP Level 2 EVCS gap and 10% of the 2030 DCFC gap.

This Plan identifies enough L2 opportunities to meet and exceed the 2030 targets and puts the City in a good position to meet the CAP 2045 targets. To achieve the goals in the CAP, approximately 309 additional DCFC ports will need to be identified and installed, beyond those that have been identified in this plan. The City should consider the following actions to foster additional EVCS installations:
• Continue to evaluate and adopt more stringent building codes or reach codes to increase EV infrastructure as part of new multifamily and commercial projects. • Continue to maintain the City’s EV webpage with educational information such as tenants’ rights to install EVCS and funding opportunities for EVCS installations. • Continue to build out EVCS infrastructure at City-owned parking lots to demonstrate municipal leadership, leveraging third-party ownership models where possible to reduce the City’s capital expenditures. The City may want to re-evaluate current vendor offerings to ensure that installed EVCS can meet required uptime and customer services standards. • Conduct a deeper study of curbside EVCS opportunities to identify potential additional EVCS opportunities on City-owned property.
• Review how low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) credits should be used to further EVCS expansion.
2 Implementation costs include estimated design costs, construction management costs, construction costs, and contingency.
1954
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 9
This Plan builds off the EVCS recommendations in the CAP and acts as an update to the EVCS targets based on State policies and goals and provides an understanding of how much infrastructure is needed to meet those goals. This Plan details the specific needs of the City and outlines several opportunities and strategies to meet those needs. While additional work will need to be done beyond this Plan, it provides a roadmap to achieve several near term goals. 1955
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 10

2. Introduction

2.1 City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
The City Council adopted Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond (CAP) in September 2020, which outlined several measures the City will take to get on the path to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045.

As shown in Figure 1, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transportation constitute the largest source of GHG emissions in Dublin. Reported in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), this metric is used to compare the emissions from various GHGs on the basis of their global-warming potential (GWP), by converting amounts of other gases to the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide with the same global warming potential.3 To address this emission source, the CAP included several measures aimed at reducing GHGs within the transportation sector. Two of the measures are:
• SM-1. Adopt an Electric Vehicle Charging Station Ordinance • SM-2. Develop an EV Infrastructure Plan
Figure 1. City of Dublin 2015 GHG Emission Inventory by Sector (Metric Tons CO2e) This Plan addresses Measure SM-2, Develop an EV Infrastructure Plan. The intent of CAP Measure SM-2 is to develop an EV Infrastructure Plan (Plan) to ensure that the City optimally sites EVCS to keep pace with target EV adoption rates. The CAP recommends one public charger for every 27 electric vehicles, not including EVCS that may be installed at residential or workplace sites. For the purposes of this Plan, one EVCS is considered one charging port. EVCS with two charging ports that can charge two vehicles simultaneously are considered two EVCS. Throughout the rest of this Plan, anytime the number of EVCS is referenced, the number indicates the quantity of charging ports. 3 Glossary:Carbon dioxide equivalent - Statistics Explained - Eurostat 1956
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 11
This Plan addresses Measure SM-2 by re-evaluating long term EV infrastructure needs in the City to support 100% EV ownership by 2045, as well as to identify priority sites for future EV infrastructure to help spur EV adoption. This Plan focuses on the EV infrastructure needed to support battery electric light duty passenger cars and provides additional guidance on the recommended power level of EVCS, as well as provides targets for EVCS that may be needed at multifamily dwellings (MFDs) and workplaces throughout the City. The Plan excludes consideration for fleets or medium- and heavyduty vehicles since regional efforts for medium- and heavy-duty vehicle electrification have been completed, such as Ava Community Energy’s (Ava) Zero Emission Medium- and Heavy-Duty Goods Movement Blueprint.
4 Although this Plan does not directly reduce GHG emissions on its own, it encourages adoption of alternatively fueled vehicles.

2.2 Environmental Benefits
Transportation is the largest source of GHG emissions in Dublin and the United States, impacting not only climate change and the health of the environment, but also the health of residents. The primary advantage of electric vehicles is that they produce no tailpipe GHG emissions or criteria air pollutants. While GHG emissions and air pollutants may be associated with the production of the vehicles and electricity sourced to power the EVs, EVs typically have a smaller emission footprint over the lifecycle of the vehicle.
5 Since more than half of the electricity generated for the California electricity grid is GHG emissions free and the default power for Dublin municipal, residential and commercial properties is 100% renewable and GHG emissions free, the power provided to EVs charged in Dublin likely have a lower carbon footprint than EVs that are charged elsewhere.

Electrifying the transportation sector is a key strategy to meet CAP 2030 goals.

2.2.1 GHG Benefits
Tailpipe GHG emissions include carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4). In California, the transportation sector is the largest source of GHG emissions and which is estimated to equate to 38% of the GHG emissions6 in California in 2023, which is the most recent available data.

GHG emissions reductions potentials in this Plan are calculated for four EV adoption scenarios discussed in detail in Section 4 and summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. City of Dublin EV Ownership Scenarios
Scenario EV Ownership
Percentage (%)
EV Vehicle
Registration Target
2030 California Target 23% 18,536
2030 Dublin CAP Target 33% 20,148
2035 California Target 50% 42,164
2045 Dublin CAP Target 100% 68,929
Emission reduction potential for the scenarios shown in Table 3 is summarized in Table 4. Under each scenario it is assumed that one third of all EVs are plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) and thus will have some emissions associated with gasoline combustion. Full electric vehicle emissions are 4 Ava's Zero-Emission Medium- and Heavy-Duty Goods Movement Blueprint 5 IEA's EV Life Cycle Assessment Calculator 6 California GHG Inventory 1957
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 12
assumed to be zero as any EVs charged in Dublin will likely be charged with 100% GHG emissions free electricity.

The GHG emission reductions associated with zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption are consistent with the CAP and based on the most recently available and accurate emission models. The calculations in Table 4 use passenger vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from the CAP (i.e., from the adjusted forecast) and apply updated emission factors from the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) software. EMFAC2021 projects county specific GHG emissions based on improved fuel efficiency from on-road vehicles and levels of electric vehicle adoption that CARB expects due to State regulations. The GHG emissions from EMFAC2021 were processed to provide an emission factor for passenger vehicles in Alameda County. The resulting GHG emission reductions from each ZEV adoption scenario incorporate these updated, Alameda County specific projections from CARB and scale them to Dublin's forecasted passenger VMT to ensure consistency with the CAP.

Table 4. Emission Reduction Potential in Dublin due to EV Adoption Year
Baseline
Emissions
Forecast
(Business
as Usual)
(MT CO2e)
Statewide EV Ownership CAP 2030 Scenario Carbon Neutrality by 2045 Scenario
Annual
Emissions
(MT CO2e)
Reduction
from
Baseline
(MT CO2e)
Annual
Emissions
(MT CO2e)
Reduction
from
Baseline
(MT CO2e)
Annual
Emissions
(MT CO2e)
Reduction
from
Baseline
(MT CO2e)
2030 91,244 88,581 2,663 82,214 9,030 46,906 44,338
2035 92,363 81,987 10,376 66,976 25,387 23,468 68,895
2045 94,521 72,863 21,658 26,059 68,463 19,991 74,530

2.2.2 Air Quality and Health Benefits
Traditional gasoline and diesel powered vehicles also represent one of the largest sources of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions across California. Direct pollutant emissions react with the atmosphere and sunlight to create more pollutants including ozone and secondary particulate matter. Dublin has been identified by the Bay Area Air District as a community impacted by 8-hour ozone exceedances. Electrifying transportation is important to help Dublin achieve local air quality standards. Therefore, transitioning to use of zero and near-zero GHG emission transportation technologies is critical to achieving clean air standards in addition to meeting climate change goals.

There are many scientific studies7 correlating the use of zero-emission vehicles to improve air quality.

Real-time data shows that there are direct links between air quality improvement and health benefits including reduction in strokes, heart disease, lung cancer, and respiratory diseases including asthma.

Inhaling combustion byproducts over time can lead to high blood pressure and can increase incidents of emphysema and asthma attacks. The American Chemical Society published a study in July 2020 estimating exposure to air pollution is a factor in up to 200,000 deaths each year with half of the deaths directly attributed to fossil fuel combustion.8 Another study by Science of the Total Environment estimates that when 20 out of 1,000 people in a given zip code switch to driving EVs 7 It doesn't take that many electric cars to improve public health 8 Reducing Mortality from Air Pollution in the United States by Targeting Specific Emission Sources 1958
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 13
there is a more than 3% reduction in emergency room visits due to asthma attacks.9 As air quality improves, health problems lessen and hospital visits and premature deaths decrease.

The health benefits from EV adoption can be quantified by calculating the cost of avoided medical treatments and deaths. Energy, Environment, and Economics (E3) published a report quantifying the air quality benefits of electrification measures such as transitioning to zero emissions transportation throughout California, based on data projections through 2035. 10 The report highlighted regional
differences such as population factors and air quality status to understand how electrification could impact the magnitude of air quality benefits and may scale across different areas of California.

Electrification benefits are measured in dollars per gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE), which is a unit of energy representing the energy content of one gallon of gasoline for all emitting fuel types, including gasoline and diesel.

E3 used CARB data to estimate the monetary health savings of reducing emissions from on-road vehicles. On average, California would benefit by approximately $1.47 for every GGE reduced by 9 California's Early Transition to EVs: Observed health and air quality co-benefits 10 Quantifying the Air Quality Impacts of Decarbonization and Distributed Energy Programs in CA Figure 2. Change in PM2.5 by 2035, Particulate Matter Concentration

2.5 Microns or Less in Diameter (µg m-3)
1959
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 14
electrifying all forms of on-road transportation, including medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.

Electrifying light-duty vehicles has a relatively lower benefit of approximately $0.56 to $0.60 per GGE.

One of the leading drivers of health impacts from the transportation sector are the impacts caused by particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The dark blue areas in Figure 2 highlight the greatest potential to reduce PM2.5 from electrifying on-road transportation. This figure illustrates the change in PM2.5 in 2035 due to electrifying on-road transportation relative to a business-as-usual scenario. Some of the greatest opportunities for air quality improvement from transportation electrification lie in Southern California and the Central Valley. The San Joaquin Air Basin is uncontained, therefor it is also affected by pollutant concentrations in surrounding zones, such as the Bay Area (marked with the red X) and Central Coast regions. Reducing air pollution in Dublin may have downwind benefits in other areas of the state.

The Bay Area, while also densely populated, has comparatively better air quality than these other regions, so health benefits are expected to be lower than the statewide average. However, since Dublin is in a non-attainment area for tropospheric ozone, a criteria air pollutant, electrifying the transportation sector will provide health benefits. It is estimated that local benefits would average around $0.19 per GGE due to electrifying light-duty on-road transportation (see Appendix E for supporting calculations). Depending on actual EV adoption, Dublin may realize between $4.8M and $7.4M in annual monetary health benefits by 2045 (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Estimated Dollar Value of Air Quality Benefits in Dublin from EV Adoption $0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 Annual Health Benefit Savings ($)
Year
2030-23.4% ZEVs
2030-33% ZEVs
2035-50% ZEVs
2045-100% ZEVs
1960
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 15

2.3 EV Charger Types Overview
EV chargers are categorized into three different levels depending on the amount of power they can output to an EV (Figure 4). Level 1 charging cords, which are typically included with the car when purchased, have the native plug type of the car on one end and can be plugged into a standard wall outlet on the other. Level 1 charging utilizes 110 volt alternating current (AC) electricity and is generally only suitable at a driver’s primary residence as the low power output only provides between 3 to 5 miles of range per hour. Level 2 charging utilizes 208-volt or 240-volt AC electricity with output between 1.9 to 19.2 kilowatt (kW) and generally provides between 12 to 60 miles of range per hour. For both Level 1 and Level 2 charging, EVs contain an on-board charger that converts the AC electricity to direct current electricity in the battery. Level 3 or Direct Current Fast Chargers (DCFCs) utilize DC power and provide electricity directly to the battery. DCFC power output ranges between 50 kW to over 350 kW and typically provides over 60 miles of range in 20 minutes. Actual charge times will vary based on power output of the charger and the maximum charge rate the vehicle battery can accept.

Figure 4. Electric Vehicle Charging Overview
There are currently three available plug types for DCFC in North America: Combined Charging Standard (CCS), CHAdeMO, and North America Charging Standard (NACS). Historically most nonTesla automakers were standardizing on CCS, with the exception being the earlier Nissan Leaf models which used the CHAdeMO port. In November 2022, Tesla opened its previously proprietary charging technology to others, rebranding its port as NACS. Presently most major automakers have switched to NACS, giving drivers access to Tesla’s extensive network. CCS-to-NACS adapters are commercially available for older EVs with CCS, and Tesla is adding CCS support at its stations11 CHAdeMO has generally fallen out of favor for other plug types.
11 Tesla's Magic Dock Port Adapter
1961
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 16

2.4 Typical EVCS Costs
Product and installation costs generally increase as power output increases because increased loads are more likely to trigger site or utility electrical upgrades (Table 5). Product costs for charger hardware may decrease over time as manufacturers realize economies of scale, particularly for DCFCs; however, installation costs are not likely to decrease over time as electrical equipment is a mature industry, and labor costs are expected to increase over time. Installation costs assume a licensed electrician or electrical contractor is hired to complete the work and includes permit fees, as necessary. Building permits and permit fees will be required for any electrical upgrades needed to support the EVCS, including new 110-volt outlets. These fees are accounted for in Table 5 below.

Table 5. Overview of Charging Types and Typical Costs
Charger
Level
Typical Use
Case
Typical
Material Cost
($/port)
Typical
Installation
Costs
($/port)
Typical upgrades needed
Typical
Ongoing
Costs
($/port/yr)
Level 1;
Standard
household
outlet, 1.9
kW at 110V
Overnight
residential $100 - $200 $0 - $2,000+
Typically none to a new 20
amp (A) circuit and
electrical outlet installed in
parking stall.

Networking:

N/A.

Maintenance:

N/A
Level 2;

1.9kW19.2kW.

Typical

7.2kW
Residential,
workplace,
commercial
$400 - $800
(nonnetworked);
$2,000 - $5,000
(networked)
$10,000 -
$50,000+
Single family residential:
new branch circuit, surface
conduit, wiring. May
require panel upgrade.

Multifamily/Commercial:
new PG&E electrical
service, (meter,
transformer, electrical
panels), trenching, ADA
site accessibility
improvements, signage,
striping.

Networking:
$120 - $360.

Maintenance:
$150 - $1,000
Level 3
(DCFC);
25kW350kW+
Commercial
locations
with short
dwell times
(<1 hour)
$15,000 -
$100,000+
(typically $500-
750 per kW
nameplate
output)
$75,000 -
200,000+
New PG&E electrical
service, (meter,
transformer, electrical
panels), trenching, ADA
site accessibility
improvements, signage,
striping;
Networking:
$120 -$360.

Maintenance:
$1,000+
Level 1 charge cords are typically included when a driver buys or leases an EV. If a cord needs to be replaced, they are generally available online or at local dealerships for between $100 to $200. There are typically no additional installation costs unless a new electrical outlet needs to be installed adjacent to the parking stall. Depending on other building loads, a new circuit may need to be dedicated for Level 1 EV charging loads. Level 1 chargers are not networked so there are no ongoing costs, and they do not require maintenance.

Level 2 EVCS can either be networked chargers or non-networked chargers. The hardware for nonnetworked Level 2 EVCS typically costs between $400 to $800 per port. The hardware for networked 1962
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 17
Level 2 EVCS costs between $2,000 to $5,000 per port. Installation costs will vary depending on where the EVCS is installed, the existing conditions of the site, and upgrades that may be required. In single family residential buildings that have spare electrical capacity, hiring an electrician to install a new dedicated branch circuit and wiring may be less than $1,000. Older single family residential buildings may require an electrician to upgrade an electrical panel which can range from $2,000 to $5,000 to complete. The numbers provided here include estimated costs of permit fees. Single family residential buildings will rarely have the need for networked EVCS.

It is generally more expensive to install Level 2 EVCS at MFDs and commercial sites than at single family residential sites. Installations will require a building permit and associated permit fees.

Depending on the type of charger, number of EVCS installed, and overall complexity, it may cost between $10,000 to $50,000 per Level 2 port installed. Existing MFDs and commercial sites will most likely require a new or upgraded electrical service. MFDs and commercial sites may require long trench runs which are expensive compared to a surface mounted conduit in single family homes.

Publicly accessible chargers will have additional Americans with Disability Act (ADA) requirements, safety lighting considerations, and other parking lot improvements needed, which may increase overall project costs (ADA requirements are discussed separately in this Plan). Larger EVCS projects may require engineering design, project management, and construction management, which increases soft costs.

Since it has been difficult to install EVCS in MFDs for the reasons indicated above, some MFDs may consider Level 1 charging for tenants. While this is a viable option to install low-cost charging infrastructure at MFDs, Level 1 charging may not provide enough confidence for a driver to convert to an electric vehicle depending on their driving habits. Given that battery capacities are expected to increase, and higher power chargers will be needed to fully recharge them, MFD owners should evaluate installation of Level 2 chargers before evaluating Level 1 options. There are strategies to reduce the infrastructure costs of Level 2 chargers at MFDs, including circuit sharing where multiple charging ports are connected to a single circuit. For instance, existing MFDs looking to retrofit with EVCS may consider installing as many as four Level 2 charging ports on a single 40A circuit. With this configuration, when a single charging port is in use, it receives the maximum available power output and splits the power when multiple ports are in use.

DCFCs are generally not recommended in residential areas as the longer dwell times generally make them more suitable for Level 2 or, in some cases, Level 1 charging. DCFCs are most suitable for commercial sites where dwell times are generally less than 1 hour. DCFC hardware is physically much larger and much more expensive than Level 2 hardware, ranging from $15,000 to over $100,000 depending on the power output, with cost increasing as power output goes up. DCFC will commonly be on a new electrical service given the high power demands and require significant infrastructure to support them. This results in project costs for DCFCs ranging between $75,000 to over$200,000 per port depending on project specifics. Similar to publicly accessible Level 2 EVCS, DCFC projects may require long trench runs, have ADA requirements, and lighting and security concerns. DCFC projects usually require more involved engineering design, project management, and construction management, which increases soft costs.
1963
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 18
Networked vs. Non-Networked Chargers
Most Level 2 EVCS and DCFCs are networked charging stations that utilize WiFi or a cell signal to connect to a cloud platform which allows the charging station owner to monitor utilization and set charging rates. EVCS may have a cloud platform hosted by the charging station manufacturer or a 3rd party. Networked EVCS are generally recommended for public-facing applications because they allow the EVCS owner to charge users for the electricity they consume. The networked EVCS provides a platform for setting charging rates, handling billing, providing the site host with utilization data to inform future rate design, and may be required for certain incentive programs, such as LCFS credits.

Networked chargers are also important for fleet applications, as most networking platforms have basic scheduling and load control features which can be important to manage ongoing energy costs.

Networking costs will vary by vendor and may have different price points depending on desired features but typically range between $15 to $30 per month per charging port. It is common to prepay for multiple years of networking fees, typically up to 5 years, when a new EVCS is installed.

Non-networked Level 2 charging stations are available and may be appropriate in certain circumstances. Common use cases for non-networked Level 2 EVCS include:
• Personal charging at single family homes.
• MFDs where landlords intend to offer the EVCS at no cost or charge a flat monthly rate to tenants.
• Commercial landlords that want to offer EVCS as a perk to attract tenants and foot traffic and are willing to either absorb the cost or factor it into the rent charged to tenants. • Employers that intend to offer free charging as a perk to staff and are not interested in utilization data.

Operations and Maintenance
EVCS require various amounts of regular maintenance and repairs. Level 2 chargers do not contain moving parts and outside of regular visual inspections may not require much preventative maintenance. DCFCs are more complex and contain moving parts, such as fans to keep components cool. This can result in regular maintenance such as filter replacements. EVCS owners should review maintenance requirements with the charging vendor early in the project development process to understand what may be required for maintenance over the life of the charger.

Maintenance issues can be a mix of hardware or software related issues. According to a study conducted by UC Berkeley, the most common EVCS issues were payment system failures, charge initiation failures, broken screens, or error messages. 12 Broken ports and connection issues were also
noted problems. Software related issues can typically be resolved by rebooting the EVCS or contacting the network provider. Hardware issues may require repairing components, such as screens or broken connectors. It is generally recommended for EVCS owners to purchase the maximum warranty available on the EVCS and consider maintenance service agreements with the vendor or a third-party provider. Maintenance agreements typically include minimum response times when an issue is reported but may not provide a guarantee on when the chargers will be repaired and operational. Timelines may vary depending on the type of issue. While software issues can 12 Rempel, David and Cullen, Carleen and Bryan, Mary Matteson and Cezar, Gustavo Vianna, Reliability of Open Public Electric Vehicle Direct Current Fast Chargers. Available at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=4077554 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4077554 1964
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 19
typically be resolved remotely and relatively quickly, if hardware needs to be replaced, vendors may be subject to parts availability, availability of qualified technicians, and supply chain issues. The EVCS owner may also need to stay in close communication with the service provider to ensure timely service. As the industry continues to develop, it is expected that parts availability will increase, and more technicians will be trained in EVCS repair to reduce overall response timelines. Vandalism of the chargers may also occur, but maintenance agreements with service providers typically exclude vandalism from the service contract.
1965
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 20

3. Policy Review
Several policies at the state and local levels will drive or impact transportation electrification to help California and Dublin meet its electrification goals. Some of these policies are outlined in this section.

These policies will either directly or indirectly impact various aspects of Dublin’s goals of increasing EV adoption. This section provides a high-level overview of EV-related policies that impact the lightduty passenger car market. More detailed information for some of these policies is included in Appendix D.

3.1 California’s EV Goals
In September 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order (EO) N-79-20 which prohibits the sale of new internal combustion passenger vehicles by 2035. 13 To facilitate meeting the
goals in EO N-79-20, CARB passed the Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) in August 2022 which requires vehicle manufactures to sell an increasingly higher percentage of ZEVs, as shown in Figure 5, until 100% of new light-duty vehicle sales are zero-emission in 2035.14 While this rule does not directly impact the City, accessible and reliable electric vehicle chargers are required to provide consumer confidence to purchase an EVs.

Figure 5. Advanced Clean Cars II Proposed ZEV Sales Requirements However, the long-standing federal waiver under the Clean Air Act (CAA) that allowed California to implement such stringent emissions standards is now under major threat. In early 2025, the EPA transmitted to Congress the ACC II waiver (among others) under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), effectively treating the waiver as a “rule.” In May 2025, Congress passed, and in June 2025, President Trump signed, three joint resolutions revoking those waivers, including the ACC II waiver. Initially 13 California Governor Gavin Newsom Executive Order N-79-20, September 23, 2020. 14 Advanced Clean Cars II | California Air Resources Board 1966
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 21
California challenged the Trump administration in court, but California Air Resources Board has since withdrawn its waiver request and is reimagining the ACC II rule. The impact of the actions of the federal government on EV sales is shown in Figure 6. EV sales are expected to grow over the next five years, but at a slower pace than had been predicted. California’s overarching goal to decarbonize the transportation sector has not changed; however, the path the state takes and the timeline to achieve the goal has changed with the current federal administration. California continues to fund EV initiatives to increase EV adoption.

Figure 6. EV Share of Total US Passenger Car Sales

3.2 AB 1236 and AB 970
Permitting requirements and prolonged approval timelines can be significant barriers to installing EVCS. To encourage a consistent and efficient permitting process for EVCS, California passed Assembly Bill 1236 in October 2015 and AB 970 in October 2021 which collectively require cities and counties to streamline EV charging station permitting protocols and establish maximum permit review times (Figure 7).
15 The City is currently in full compliance with AB 1236 and has streamlined its EV permitting process. Additional details on the requirements of these regulations are contained in Appendix D.
15 AB 970 Legislation
1967
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 22

3.3 Building Code and Reach Codes
The California Green Building Code (CALGreen) has requirements for EV Infrastructure as part of new construction projects. CALGreen codes include minimum mandatory measures that must be adopted by all municipalities as part of the triannual building code update and more stringent, voluntary measures that cities can adopt if desired. The City of Dublin has consistently adopted voluntary Tier II reach codes for EV infrastructure as mandatory, including 2022 CALGreen code cycle which was effective on January 1, 2023. The 2022 CALGreen mid-cycle update, effective as of July 1, 2024, was the first code cycle to add new requirements including additional EVCS requirements for smaller nonresidential building modification projects, specifically for projects that require transformer upgrades or when solar photovoltaic panels are added to parking lots. 16 The new code requires adding EV
infrastructure when projects are bringing new power to the site or parking lot, which can reduce the incremental cost of installing the EVCS infrastructure.

In addition to adopting the more stringent standards in CALGreen, the City of Dublin should track and consider forward-thinking building and transportation electrification reach codes17 developed by local California Community Choice Aggregators (CCAs) such as Ava Community Energy.

3.4 California Civil Code 1947.6
Historically it has been difficult to install EVCS in multifamily dwellings due to limited electrical capacity serving the buildings and due to split incentives between the tenants and the landlords. To 16 California Green Building Code 2022 Mid-Cycle Update 17 Bay Area Reach Codes Checklist Online Application
Ordinance
Permit Submittal Plan Review
(Health & Safety)
Approval
To Build
20-40 Days
Resubmittal Deficiency Notice
5-10 Days Required
per AB
970
Figure 7. EVCS Permit Process and Timeline Per AB 1236 and AB 970 1968
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 23
help reduce some of the barriers in this housing type, the State passed Civil Code 1947.6, which requires landlords to accept a tenant’s written request to install an EVCS, barring certain exemptions, provided that the tenant is willing to pay for all upfront and ongoing costs, among other conditions. 18 The rule applies to leases executed, extended, or renewed on and after July 1, 2015, or if rent controlled, a lease executed, extended, or renewed on and after January 1, 2019. Tenants are required to use a UL listed EVCS and have it installed by a licensed electrician; if not, they will need to carry insurance for the project. The code directly impacts renters and landlords in the City, and this information is posted on the City’s website to inform residents on their right to install EVCS at their primary residence. Additional information on this code is described in Appendix D. 18 California Civil Code 1947.6 Legislation
1969
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 24

4. EV Charging Station Infrastructure Needs

4.1 Existing Infrastructure
Dublin has one of the highest rates of EV ownership in the state, and as a result EV infrastructure has been expanding to meet growing demand. The City has installed publicly accessible EVCS at several sites including the Civic Center, Public Safety Complex, and multiple parks. The private sector has also installed EVCS throughout Dublin. As of March 2026, there are 300 EVCS throughout Dublin consisting of a mix of 222 Level 2 chargers and 78 DCFCs. EVCS throughout the City can be viewed on PlugShare (Figure 8).

Figure 8. PlugShare Overview of EVCS near Dublin

4.2 Future Needs
Charging infrastructure for EVs will look very different than the fueling infrastructure for gasoline vehicles.

While personal gasoline vehicles fuel almost
exclusively at privately owned gas stations in just a
few minutes, EV charging will be more
heterogeneous, as chargers can be located at
residences, workplaces, commercial destinations, or
DCFC charging hubs. The amount of infrastructure will
also be significantly different, as there were 10,423 gas stations in California in 2021 (the number of individual fueling nozzles is not reported) versus the number of required EVCS ports the California Energy Commission (CEC) estimates are needed statewide to support California’s EV ownership goals.

The CEC forecasts that about 847,700 Level 2 chargers and 39,300 DCFCs are necessary to facilitate

7.1 million EVs by 2030, with an increase to 1,834,300 Level 2 chargers and 82,600 DCFCs to support the 2035 statewide goal of 15.2 million EVs. Table 6 shows the statewide charging station targets divided into categories including workplace chargers, MFD chargers, and public/commercial chargers These targets exclude EVCS that may be installed at private single-family residences.

Table 6. CEC 2030 and 2035 Statewide EVCS Port Targets
EVCS Infrastructure Needed to
Support EV Adoption
The CEC’s report suggests that one
publicly accessible Level 2 EVCS can
support on average 6 EVs and one DCFC
can support on average 42 EVs.
1970
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 25
2030 EV Target EVCS Port
Quantity
Percentage
of Total (%)
Distribution of
L2 chargers
Workplace L2 429,500 48% 51%
Public L2 226,800 26% 27%
MFD L2 191,400 22% 22%
DCFC 39,300 4% -
Total Chargers 887,000 100.0% 100.0%
2035 EV Target EVCS Port
Quantity
Percentage
of Total (%)
Distribution of
L2 chargers
Workplace L2 979,000 51% 53%
Public L2 474,700 25% 26%
MFD L2 380,600 20% 21%
DCFC 82,600 4% -
Total Chargers 1,916,900 100.0% 100.0%
As of September 2025, California has 182,548 Level 2 chargers installed and 18,632 DCFC Installed. 19 This leaves a statewide gap of 665,152 Level 2 chargers and 20,668 DCFCs needed by 2030 to meet the California’s transportation electrification goals.

Table 7 summarizes how many Level 2 EVCS and DCFCs may be needed by 2030, 2035, and 2045 in Dublin under four scenarios and the resulting EV infrastructure gap using the CEC high level 2 pathway. The 2030 State goal scenario assumes that EV adoption in Dublin tracks with statewide goals by 2030. This scenario scales down statewide EVCS needs to Dublin only based on the population and statewide EV ownership rate (23% by 2030, 50% by 2035). The CAP 2030 scenario estimates the infrastructure needed to meet Dublin’s Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond (CAP 2030) goal of 33% EV ownership in Dublin by 2030. The 2045 CAP scenario shows the infrastructure needed to support 100% EV ownership in 2045 which would be required to meet the carbon neutrality goal in Dublin’s CAP 2030. The scenarios assume there is negligible uptake of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Populations in Table 7 have been adjusted from Dublin’s CAP 2030 cap report to reflect the current population and forecasted growth based on the City’s Community and Economic Profile.
20 Based on the current population and latest City forecasts, the City expects a 1.22% compound annual growth rate between 2025 and 2040. This growth rate is used to project the City’s population in 2030 and 2035. After 2040, the population is assumed to be stable.

Table 7. EV Charger Port Targets, CEC Estimated/High Level 2 Pathway Scaled for Dublin Scenario Population
(Projected)
EV
Registration
Target
Total Level
2 EVCS
Port Target
Total DCFC
Ports
Target
Total L2
Installed
(Mar 2026)
Total DCFC
Installed
(Mar 2026)
Level
2 Gap
DCFC
Gap
2030 State
Goal 79,361 18,536(23% EVs) 2,213 103 222 78 1,991 25
2030
Dublin CAP
Target
79,361 20,148
(33% EVs) 2,405 112 222 78 2,183 34
2035 State
Goal 84,323 42,164(50% EVs) 5,088 229 222 78 4,866 151
19 CEC ZEV and Infrastructure Stats Data 20 City of Dublin Community and Economic Profile 1971
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 26
Scenario Population
(Projected)
EV
Registration
Target
Total Level
2 EVCS
Port Target
Total DCFC
Ports
Target
Total L2
Installed
(Mar 2026)
Total DCFC
Installed
(Mar 2026)
Level
2 Gap
DCFC
Gap
2045
Dublin CAP
Target
89,595 68,929
(100% EVs) 8,318 374 222 78 8,096 296
The CEC analysis indicates that most charging infrastructure will consist of Level 2 chargers, with DCFC making up about 4%. However, recent programs like CALeVIP 2.0 and National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) have prioritized funding for DCFC over Level 2 chargers (see Section 9 for details and eligibility). Even if some City-owned projects do not qualify for DCFC-specific funding, it remains important to assess how increasing the share of DCFC could affect overall community charging needs.

The CEC’s infrastructure assessment also modelled a “gas station” scenario for 2030 which indicated that if an additional 63,000 DCFC were installed statewide, 402,000 fewer public and workplace Level 2 EVCS would be needed. This is equivalent to approximately 6 fewer Level 2 EVCS for each additional DCFC added. The CEC’s gas station model scenario did not reduce any MFD EVCS from its baseline assumptions. Table 8 summarizes the results of the CEC’s gas station model scenario which results in approximately 19% of the EVCS being DCFC. Each scenario in Table 8 utilizes the CEC’s estimates on the type of charging infrastructure needed to support a population of vehicles. Table 9 uses this gas station model pathway and applies it to the same four EV ownership scenarios in Dublin: 2030 State goals, CAP 2030 target, 2035 State goal, and CAP 2045 target. The table also shows the infrastructure gap under this pathway.

Table 8. 2030 and 2035 Statewide CEC Gas Station Model, Mixed Level 2 and DCFC Charger Estimates
2030 EV Target EVCS Port
Quantity
Percentage of Total
(%)
Distribution of
L2 chargers
Workplace L2 166,300 30% 37%
Public L2 87,800 16% 20%
MFD L2 191,300 35% 43%
DCFC 102,300 19% -
Total Chargers 547,700 100% 100.0%
2035 EV Target
EVCS Port
Quantity
Percentage of Total
(%)
Distribution of
L2 chargers
Workplace L2 242,500 26% 33%
Public L2 117,600 13% 16%
MFD L2 380,600 42% 51%
DCFC 171,400 19% -
Total Chargers 912,100 100% 100.0%
1972
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 27
Table 9. EVCS Port Targets, Gas Station Model, Mixed L2/DCFC Scaled for Dublin Scenario Population
(Projected)
EV
Registration
Target
Total
Level 2
EVCS
Ports
Target
Total
DCFC
Ports
Target
Total L2
Installed
(March
2026)
Total DCFC
Installed
(March
2026)
Level
2 Gap
DCFC
Gap
2030 State
Goal 79,361 18,536(23% EVs) 1,163 267 222 78 941 189
2030
Dublin CAP
Target
79,361 20,148
(33% EVs) 1,264 290 222 78 1,042 212
2035 State
Goal 84323 42,164(50% EVs) 2,055 475 222 78 1,833 397
2045
Dublin CAP
Target
89,595 68,929
(100% EVs) 3,359 777 222 78 3,137 699
A third scenario is presented in Table 10 where DCFC make up approximately 50% of charger installations. The CEC assumption that one DCFC may replace six L2 EVCS is assumed for this scenario, only unlike the “gas station” scenario shown in Table 9, MFD L2 EVCS were adjusted in order to reach the 50% DCFC target. Under this pathway, 297,000 EVCS would be needed statewide to support 7.1 million EVs by 2030. The high DCFC pathway scaled for Dublin is shown in Table 11. Table 11 also shows the infrastructure gap under this pathway.

Table 10. 2030 and 2035 Statewide High DCFC Charger Port Targets 2030 EV
Target
Charger
Quantity
Percentage
of total (%)
Distribution of L2
chargers
Workplace L2 55,300 19% 37%
Public L2 29,200 10% 20%
MFD L2 63,600 21% 43%
DCFC 148,900 50% -
Total Chargers 297,000 100% 100.0%
2035 EV
Target
Charger
Quantity
Percentage
of Total (%)
Distribution of L2
chargers
Workplace L2 104,400 16% 33%
Public L2 50,600 8% 16%
MFD L2 163,800 26% 51%
DCFC 320,100 50% -
Total Chargers 638,900 100% 100.0%
1973
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 28
Table 11. EVCS Port Targets, High DCFC Pathway Scaled for Dublin Scenario Population
(Projected)
EV
Registration
Target
Total
Level 2
EVCS Port
Target
Total
DCFC
Port
Target
Total L2
Installed
(March
2026)
Total DCFC
Installed
(March
2026)
Level
2 Gap
DCFC
Gap
2030 State
Goal 79,361 18,536(23% EVs) 387 389 222 78 165 311
2030 Dublin
CAP Target 79,361 20,148(33% EVs) 420 423 222 78 198 345 2035 State
Goal 84323 42,164(50% EVs) 884 888 222 78 662 810
2045 Dublin
CAP Target 89,595 68,929(100% EVs) 1,446 1,451 222 78 1,224 1,373 These projections are not meant to be prescriptive
targets but rather illustrate different pathways of
building out EV infrastructure within a community, each with its own benefits and drawbacks. DCFCs can serve
more drivers with fewer ports, but there will be a need for some lower cost Level 2 charging in long dwell time areas where people live and work. While fewer DCFC
ports may be needed to meet charging demand, they
are significantly more expensive to install and more
expensive to operate. The cost to deliver electricity
from DCFCs is greater than the cost to deliver electricity from Level 2 EVCS due to higher demand charges. Publicly available EVCS are likely to be on a commercial or EV specific rate tariff. These rate tariffs typically include a per-kW fee based on the highest load during the billing cycle month. Since DCFC require higher loads than Level 2 EVCS, the total cost per kWh is higher, all other factors being equal. DCFC owners typically charge higher rates to drivers to compensate for this, which could pose equity concerns if residents do not have access to affordable charging.
21 Discussions on potential rates the City could set for the EVCS it owns and operates is included in Section 6.3.

Another factor to consider is the time it takes to deploy each type of charger. DCFC projects typically require more complex electrical design, high power transformers, and 480V electrical switchgear which currently can have extended lead times of 25 to 30 weeks. In comparison, the electrical infrastructure for Level 2 projects is simpler to design and typically take 12 weeks to procure equipment.

4.3 Planned and Potential Infrastructure
EV infrastructure has been included in the California building code requirements since 2013, with EV infrastructure requirements steadily increasing each cycle. The City of Dublin has also adopted Tier II voluntary requirements as mandatory since the 2019 building code cycle. 21 Electric Car Charging Overview | DriveClean
Infrastructure Pathways
City stakeholders and private sector
partners can decide if Level 2 or DCFC
is a better fit for their community and
at specific sites. DCFC can recharge
vehicles more quickly and less of
them may be needed to support EVs.

However, they are more expensive
and take longer to install.
1974
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 29
Between the 2013 and 2019 building code cycles, building code requirements for new construction required supporting EV infrastructure to be installed such as dedicated breakers and conduit, but did not require EVCS to be installed. The 2022 building code was the first building code cycle that required EVCS to be installed as part of new construction projects. The make-ready infrastructure put in place in development projects during previous building code cycles is expected to significantly reduce the cost of installing future EVCS, but there is currently no requirement for existing sites to install EVCS.

There are several projects in Dublin in various stages of plan review and/or construction that will include a mix of make-ready EV infrastructure and/or installed EVCS. These projects include a mix of single-family residential homes, multi-family dwellings, and commercial developments. Single-family residential or townhomes with detached garage projects do not contribute towards citywide EVCS targets as these EVCS are not accessible to the public. Multi-family projects with common area parking lots do count towards citywide EVCS goals. Commercial projects may also add publicly accessible EVCS infrastructure if new construction requirements are triggered.

The building code cycle and associated minimum EVCS requirements are established when projects submit plans for building permits. As additional multifamily and commercial properties are developed, these requirements will increase the number of EV-capable spaces and EVCS installations.

However, these increases alone are not expected to be sufficient to meet the City’s long-term needs.

Based on recent development projects, at least 90 Level 2 EVCS capable stalls are anticipated to be added in Dublin. However, there is no requirement that EVCS equipment be installed in EVCS capable stalls. “EVCS capable” indicates that sufficient electrical capacity and conduit are in place, but the charging equipment itself is not installed. In addition to EVCS capable parking stalls, EVCS are installed at development projects based on the number of parking stalls and the building code cycle.

The estimated amount of infrastructure expected to be constructed from new developments is likely an underestimate as projects under review have not yet applied for building permits. When these projects apply for permits, they will be subject to the latest building codes which are likely to require higher percentages of EV capable stalls and EVCS to be installed. Building codes generally favor Level 2 EVCS, therefore it is assumed that any additional EV infrastructure gained from future projects will generally contribute towards meeting the Level 2 targets, not the DCFC targets.

4.4 Closing the Gap
The EVCS infrastructure expected to be gained from new development projects in Dublin will only meet a portion of the City’s short- and long-term EVCS needs. Identification of private locations that may make good candidates for EVCS and exploration of opportunities to install EVCS at City owned sites are provided in Section 5 and 6, respectively. Table 12 summarizes how far each of the different opportunities could go towards meeting the EVCS infrastructure gap to meet Dublin’s 2030 CAP goal of 33% EV ownership by 2030. Table 13 summarizes how far each of the different opportunities would go towards meeting the EVCS infrastructure gap to meet Dublin’s 2045 CAP goal of 100% EV ownership. Note that numbers may not add up due to rounding. 1975
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 30
Table 12. Potential EVCS Opportunities to Meet the City’s 2030 CAP Goals Project Type
L2 EVCS
Port
Potential
DCFC Port
Potential
High Level 2
Pathway
Mixed Level 2/
DCFC Pathway
High DCFC
Pathway
% of
L2
gap
% of
DCFC
gap
% of L2
gap
% of
DCFC
gap
% of
L2
gap
% of
DCFC
gap
Current Development
Projects 90 0 4% 0% 9% 0% 45% 0%
City Sites (Section 6.1) 150 36 7% 107% 14% 17% 76% 10% Private Sites (Section 5.2) 156 36 7% 107% 15% 17% 79% 10% Total 396 72 18% 215% 38% 34% 200% 21%
Table 13. Potential EVCS Opportunities to Meet the City’s 2045 CAP Goals Project Type
L2 EVCS Port
Potential
DCFC
Port
Potential
High Level 2
Pathway
Mixed Level
2/
DCFC
Pathway
High DCFC
Pathway
% of L2
gap
% of
DCFC
gap
% of
L2
gap
% of
DCFC
gap
% of
L2
gap
% of
DCFC
gap
Current Development
Projects 90 0 1% 0% 3% 0% 7% 0%
City Sites (Section 6.1) 150 36 2% 12% 5% 5% 12% 3%
Private Sites (Section 5.2) 156 36 2% 12% 5% 5% 13% 3%
Total 396 72 5% 24% 13% 10% 32% 6%
If all the potential EVCS opportunities identified in this Plan are implemented, they would make a significant contribution towards Dublin’s 2030 EVCS goals. Depending on the pathway, some short term targets would be exceeded and would put the City in a good position to meet its 2045 goals.

This Plan does not identify enough sites to fully meet the City’s 2045 EVCS targets, therefore additional locations beyond this Plan will need to be identified and developed. 1976
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 31

5. Suitability Analysis
To determine where EV infrastructure should optimally be deployed to equitably meet requirements and growing demand, a suitability analysis was conducted for public and private locations. Evaluation criteria and the scoring matrix were developed based on City and community stakeholder feedback as described in Section 7. The evaluation methodology and scoring metrics are based on industry experience, literature reviewed and best practices.

5.1 Approach and Scoring
The purpose of the scoring criteria is to help the City identify locations for installing EV charging stations based on data-driven analysis, and with a focus on high-density residential areas, highdensity employment sites, job training/education facilities, and commercial areas suitable for morning or midday charging.

The scoring provides point values for a set of criteria to evaluate how each parcel within Dublin is rated as a potential site for EV charging stations. Each criterion is given a score of 0, 1, 3, 5, 7, or 10 points, with 0 point representing the lowest score and 10 representing the highest (Table 14). Most criteria are scored along this scale while some criteria are scored as a binary. For example, parcels either score 0 points or 10 points for the Alternative Fuel Corridors (AFCs) theme depending on whether the parcel is within 1 mile of an AFC exit. This is because parcels within 1 mile of an AFC exit are eligible for NEVI funding, while parcels beyond 1 mile are not. Similarly parcels receive either 0 or 10 points if they are within 0.25 miles of a Below Market Rate (BMR) community, as 0.25 miles is generally considered a walkable distance. Parcels beyond 0.25 miles are unlikely to adequately serve charging needs for a BMR community. Parcels are given a score for each criterion and receive a total summed score value. Parcels that receive the highest scores are considered optimal locations for the placement of EV charging stations. Parcels with the lowest scores are suboptimal for placement of EV charging stations in the near-term based on the evaluation criteria but could be sites for future stations as the charging network in Dublin expands. The scoring matrix used for the suitability analysis is summarized in Table 15.

Table 14. Point Values for Scoring Criterion
Level Points
Highest 10
High 7
Medium 5
Low 3
Lowest 1
Blank or N/A 0
1977
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 32
Table 15. Scoring Matrix

THEME CRITERIA DATA METRIC SCORING
Proximity to
Existing EV
Charging Station
Ideally placement of new
EV charging stations
should be placed at a
distance from existing or
planned stations to
increase coverage of EVCS
in Dublin and increase
overall accessibility to a
wider audience. Higher
scores for fewer chargers
nearby.

Department of
Energy (DOE)
Advanced Fuels
Campaign,
Electric Vehicle
Charging
Station
Locations
# of chargers
within 0.5-mile
radius
0 Chargers – 10 points
1 charger – 7 points
2 chargers – 5 points
3 to 6 chargers – 3 points
>6 chargers – 1 point
EV Ownership
EV ownership for each
Dublin census block was
estimated based on EV
ownership rates for the
City and household
income by census block.

Higher points for lower EV
ownership rates to fill in
charging gaps (e.g. to
provide EVCS at locations
that may not have the
capacity to install home
chargers).

California
Department of
Motor Vehicles,
by census block,
January 1,
2022.

EV ownership
by census block
<3% - 10 points

3.01 to 4% - 7 points

4.01 to 5% - 5 points
>5% - 1 points
Population Density
Areas with the highest
population density receive
the highest scores.

Installing EVCS at these
locations would provide
access to the most people.

Population
density based
on census data
People per
square mile.

Average density
for Dublin is
5,300 per
square mile
>8,000 – 10 points
5,500 to 7,999 – 7 points
4,000 to 5,499 – 5 points
3,000 to 3,999 – 3 points
1,001 to 2,999 – 1 point
0 to 1,000 – 0 points
Median Household
Income
Average household
income was evaluated to
identify lower income
areas. Higher scores for
lower income areas to
provide charging access
for lower income
communities.

Census data
US dollar
median income
levels
<$50,000 – 10 points
$50,001 to $75,000 – 7
points
$75,001 to $99,999 – 5
points
$100, 000 to $124,999 – 3
points
$125,001 to $150,000 – 1
point
>$150,001 – 0 points
Equity Component
– BMR and Market
Rate MFDs/
Communities
Locations that are near or
below market rate (BMR)
housing communities.

MFDs are given priority to
ensure charging stations
are located equitably and
provide access for all
demographics and income
segments.

City of Dublin
Distance to
below market
rate housing
communities
<0.25 miles – 10 points
>0.25 miles – 0 points
1978
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 33

THEME CRITERIA DATA METRIC SCORING
Advanced Fuels
Campaign
Highways (I-580
and I-680) Exit
Proximity
Higher points awarded to
locations within a closer
proximity to AFC highway
exits. These corridors align
with NEVI funding
opportunities.

Street
Centerline
Data,
Metropolitan
Planning
Organization
(MPO)
Proximity to
highways or
major exits in
miles
<1.0 miles – 10 points
>1.0 miles – 0 point
Public and Private
Parking Lots
Locating EV charging
stations in larger parking
lots provides greater
accessibility to the public.

Higher points awarded to
parking lots that are
larger, which allows for
more cost-effective
buildouts.

City of Dublin;
parkopedia.com
(website that
identifies free
or inexpensive
parking
options)
Number of
parking lot
stalls
>200 – 10 points
161 to 200 – 7 points
121 to 160 – 5 points
81 to 120 – 3 points
41 to 80 – 1 point
<40 stalls – 0 points
Employment
Locations
Each parcel is assigned a
score for the number of
employees within a 0.5-
mile radius of a parcel.

Higher points awarded for
more employee dense
parcels.

Employment
locations 2022
ESRI’s Info
Group
>1,501 – 10 points
1,001 to 1,500 – 7 points
651 to 1,000 – 5 points
251 to 650 – 3 points
<250 employees – 1 point
Land Use
Classifications
Types of land use that are
widely accessible to the
public or have large traffic
volumes have higher
scores. Land uses that are
inaccessible to the general
public, have low
accessibility, or are
privately owned and
operated receive lower
points.

City of Dublin
Annual Land
Use at the
parcel-level,
(MPO)
Maps /
Property
Reports |
Dublin, CA –
Official Website
Single
Family/Low
Density
Residential
Rural Residential/Agriculture
(0.01 du/ac) – 0 points
Single Family (0.9 – 6.0
du/ac) - 0 points
Estate Residential (0.01 – 0.8
du/ac) - 0 points

Medium/HighDensity
Residential
Med-High Density (14.1 –

25.0 du/ac) - 10 points
High Density (25.0 + du/ac) –
10 points
Medium Density (6.1 – 14.0
du/ac) – 7 points
Mixed
Residential
Mixed-Use Campus Office –
10 points
1979
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 34

THEME CRITERIA DATA METRIC SCORING
Commercial
Medical/Commercial – 7
points
Medical Campus – 7 points
General
Campus Office – 7 points
Retail/Office – 7 points
General Commercial – 5
points
Neighborhood Commercial –
5 points
Commercial/Campus Office –
5 points
Public Facilities
Neighborhood Square – 7
points
Public/Semi-Public – 5 points
Semi-Public – 3 points
Education
Elementary School – 7 points
Middle School – 7 points
High School – 7 points
Downtown
Planned Areas
Downtown Dublin/TransitOriented District – 10 points
Downtown Dublin/Village
Parkway District – 10 points
Downtown Dublin/Retail
District – 10 points
Industrial
Business Park/Industrial – 5
points
Industrial Park, 3 points
Open Space
and Recreation
Regional Park – 5 points
Community Park – 5 points
Neighborhood Park – 5
points
Open Space – 1 point

5.2 Suitability Analysis Top Scoring Private Sites
Output results of the suitability analysis are contained in Appendix A. The highest scoring sites that may be good candidates for EVCS and are summarized in Table 16. The sites include a mix of commercial properties and healthcare locations. These are not meant to be “must install” EVCS locations but are representative of the types of sites to which the City can provide outreach to private property owners to encourage installation of EVCS. Outreach to the property owners of highscoring sites is essential to educate them on the benefits of installing EVCS and explore opportunities for partnerships, grants, or financing options.

As sites were selected for evaluation, top scoring sites may have been excluded from evaluation for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to:
• Lack of or prohibitively small parking lots or only curbside parking available. 1980
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 35
• MFDs without open, shared or visitor parking areas.
• Sites with no nearby amenities.
• Sites directly adjacent to a more preferential site for evaluation.

Table 16. Top Scoring Sites From Suitability Analysis
Address Site Description Recommended EVCS
6698 Amador Plaza
Road Dublin, CA
Private commercial lot with short dwell time (<1
hr) destinations in downtown commercial district 4 DCFC 7181 Regional Street
Dublin, CA
Large private commercial lot with short dwell time
(<1 hr) destinations in downtown commercial
district
10 DCFC
7050 Amador Plaza
Road Dublin, CA
Large private commercial lot with short dwell time
(<1 hr) destinations in downtown commercial
district
10 DCFC
7180 Regional Street
Dublin, CA
Private commercial lot with medium dwell time (1-
4 hr) destinations in downtown commercial district 16 L2 7841 Amador Plaza
Road Dublin, CA
Private commercial lot with short dwell time (<1
hr) destinations in downtown commercial district 4 DCFC 8203 Village Parkway
Dublin, CA Church 10 L2
11976 Dublin
Boulevard Dublin, CA
Private commercial lot with short dwell time (<1
hr) destinations near MFD 4 DCFC
Mariposa Circle at
Dougherty Road
MFD with multiple small parking spaces,
opportunity for community EVCS 20 L2
6601 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, CA
Private commercial lot with short dwell time (<1
hr) destinations near MFD 4 DCFC
1 Park Place Dublin, CA Large commercial office space, with long dwell time (4+ hrs) for workplace charging 30 L2
Haven Place at
Hacienda Drive
MFD with multiple small parking spaces,
opportunity for community EVCS 20 L2
Maguire Way at Keegan
Street Large parking structure near MFD 20 L2
3100 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, CA
Kaiser Permanente, large parking lot with long
dwell time (4hrs+) for staff and/or visitors 40 L2
Total 36 DCFC, 156 Level 2
EVCS
Based on the lot size and site type of these private sites, it is estimated that a total of 36 DCFC ports and 156 Level 2 EVCS ports can be accommodated at these sites. If the highest scoring sites installed EVCS, substantial progress would be made towards the City’s 2030 goals but a gap would remain.

Under the CEC pathway targets, the EVCS listed above would meet 7% of the 2030 Level 2 infrastructure gap and 107% of the 2030 DCFC gap. Under the high DCFC pathway, the EVCS list above would meet 79% of the 2030 Level 2 EVCS infrastructure gap and 10% of the 2030 DCFC infrastructure gap. While there are currently no requirements for installing EVCS in existing parking lots in the CALGreen Building Code, there are requirements to install some EV infrastructure if existing locations install solar photovoltaics (PV) in the parking lots or make other electrical upgrades. 1981
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 36

6. Site Evaluations for City-Owned Sites
This Plan takes a comprehensive review of all City owned sites, considers which sites may be suitable for EVCS, and recommends EV infrastructure that may be installed at each site. The Plan considers the potential financial viability of City-owned and operated EVCS depending on potential utilization and the price the City sets for users.

6.1 City Owned Sites
While most of the EV infrastructure in Dublin is expected to be privately owned and operated, the City can take the lead by installing EVCS on City-owned sites. The City has taken great strides at installing EVCS throughout the community at City-owned sites including multiple parks, the public safety complex, and the library.

The benefits of installing EVCS on City-owned property include:
• Public Access and Equity: City-owned charging stations prioritize public access, ensuring that EV infrastructure is available to a wide range of residents and visitors, including those who may not have access to private charging options, promoting equity in electric transportation. • Affordability: At the City’s discretion, City-owned charging stations can offer competitive pricing, making EVs more accessible to lower-income individuals who may not be able to afford private charging solutions.
• Community Engagement: Cities can engage with residents and gather input on charging station placement and accessibility, ensuring that infrastructure meets the needs of the local community.
• Support for Public Fleets: City-owned charging stations can facilitate the transition of municipal and public service fleets to electric vehicles. • Strategic Growth: Charging station placement can be part of broader urban planning strategies, encouraging sustainable transportation choices and contributing to long-term growth and development.
• Public Education: Cities can use city-owned charging stations to educate the public about EV benefits and usage.

Table 17 below summarizes recommendations for EVCS at City owned parking lots. The evaluation was based on factors such as parking lot size, average expected dwell time of vehicles, existing EVCS in the parking lot, spare building energy capacity, available estimated grid capacity and City staff feedback. Multiple sites include renewable energy systems, consisting of solar and battery energy storage systems (BESS), however it is noted they are not designed to serve EV loads.

Table 17. Public EVCS at City Owned Sites
Site
Description
Existing
Publicly
Accessible
EVCS
Total
Recommended

7.2 kW L2
Ports
Total
Recommended

19.2 kW L2
Ports
Total
Recommended
DCFC Ports
Notes
Alamo Creek
Park 0 0 4 0

19.2kW EVCS recommended given
parking lot size and moderate dwell
times expected at parks.

Bray
Commons 0 0 0 0 Limited parking. No EVCS recommended for this site. 1982
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 37
Site
Description
Existing
Publicly
Accessible
EVCS
Total
Recommended

7.2 kW L2
Ports
Total
Recommended

19.2 kW L2
Ports
Total
Recommended
DCFC Ports
Notes
Civic Center
(City Hall and
Cultural Arts
Center(CAC)
0 13 12 0
Current CAC electrical service can
support six 7.2kW chargers, but 13
Level 2 EVCS spaces and conduit are
included in the CAC parking lot
redesign. Recommendation is to
include 13 L2 (7.2kW) in the parking
lot with load management/circuit
sharing on CAC electrical service.

Another 12 L2 (19.2kW) EVCS could
be electrically connected to main
service at Civic Center. Mix of

7.2kW and 19.2kW EVCS provide
flexibility for multiple users. Site is
adding 231kW of solar and
32kW/64kWh BESS for economic
benefit (i.e., not sized for EV loads).

DCFC not recommended given
available spare capacity.

Corporation
Yard 0 4 0 0
Corp yard has 47kW of solar and
51kW/176kWh BESS (not sized for
EV loads). Site has capacity for two

7.2kW ports, one 19.2kW port, or a
power-sharing dual-port 19.2kW
but may require load management.

Recommendations do not include
charging for fleet, which must be
evaluated separately. 7.2kW public
EVCS is for staff use during the
workday. Recommended to
incorporate staff EVCS as part of a
larger fleet project on a new
electrical service given existing
capacity constraints.

Dolan Park 0 0 0 0 Limited parking. No EVCS
recommended for this site.

Don Biddle
Community
Park
Ten 7.2kW
Level 2 18 0 0
Capacity available for the addition
of 8 more ports.

Dublin Library Three 7.2kW
Level 2 13 12 0
Site has 128kW of solar PV, not
sized for EV loads. Mix of 7.2kW and

19.2kW EVCS provide flexibility for
multiple users. DCFC not
recommended given building's
available spare capacity.
1983
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 38
Site
Description
Existing
Publicly
Accessible
EVCS
Total
Recommended

7.2 kW L2
Ports
Total
Recommended

19.2 kW L2
Ports
Total
Recommended
DCFC Ports
Notes
Dublin Sports
Grounds
Four DCFC;
Five 7.2kW
Level 2
25 0 13
A 63kW solar PV system was added
to the site to offset the EV charging
loads. EVCS recommendations
based on maximum EVCS that can
fit on electrical infrastructure
installed as part of initial EVCS
buildout.

Emerald Glen
Park North
Lot
0 0 9 4
Include a mix of DCFC and 19.2kW
L2s given variable dwell times at
parks.

Emerald Glen
Park – The
Wave
Eight 7.2kW
Level 2 8 15 8
Include mix of DCFC and L2s given
variable dwell times. 524kW solar
PV and 250kW/1056kWh BESS
installed at this site (not sized for EV
loads).

Fallon Sports
Park –Lower
Lot
Three 7.2kW
Level 2 3 2 3
Include a mix of DCFC and 19.2kW
L2s given variable dwell times at
parks. 59kW of solar at the site (not
sized for EV loads).

Fallon Sports
Park –Upper
Lot
0 0 15 8
Include a mix of DCFC and 19.2kW
L2s given variable dwell times of
parks.

Fire Station
#16 0 4 0 0

7.2kW EVCS recommended for staff
use during the workday. EVCS will
not be on backup power. Solar not
seized for EV loads.

Fire Station
#17 0 4 0 0

7.2kW EVCS recommended for staff
use during the workday. EVCS will
not be on backup power. Solar not
sized for EV loads.

Fire Station
#18 0 4 0 0

7.2kW EVCS recommended for staff
use during the workday. EVCS will
not be on backup power. Solar not
sized for EV loads.

Heritage Park
& Museums
Four 7.2kW
Level 2 4 0 0
Site has an adequate amount of
EVCS, no additional EVCS
recommended.

Kolb Park 0 0 0 0 Limited parking. No EVCS
recommended for this site.

Mape
Memorial
Park
0 0 0 0
Limited parking. No EVCS
recommended for this site.

Park and Ride
lot 0 0 0 0
City owns and leases this lot. No
City-owned EVCS recommended at
this site.
1984
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 39
Site
Description
Existing
Publicly
Accessible
EVCS
Total
Recommended

7.2 kW L2
Ports
Total
Recommended

19.2 kW L2
Ports
Total
Recommended
DCFC Ports
Notes
Public Safety
Complex
Four 7.2kW
Level 2 4 0 0
Site has an adequate amount of
public EVCS. No additional EVCS
recommended.

Senior Center 0 12 0 0

7.2kW EVCS recommended for staff
and seniors that likely will be at the
facility for extended dwell times.

Shannon Park Two 7.2kW
Level 2 2 0 4
Depending on the connected circuit,
may have grid constraints for DCFC.

19.2kW EVCS can be considered for
a lower cost buildout and if grid
constraints are an issue.

Ted Fairfield
Park 0 0 0 0 Limited parking. No EVCS recommended for this site.

Wallis Ranch
Community
Park
Two 7.2kW
Level 2 4 0 0
Could add two additional L2
chargers with circuit sharing
without additional upgrades.

Total
41 7.2kW
L2
4 DCFC 122 69 40
Total additional recommended
EVCS are 81 7.2kW L2s, 69 19.2kW
Ls, and 36 DCFCs
If all the sites were developed as recommended it would result in a total of 40 DCFCs and 189 Level 2 EVCS on City-owned property, an increase of 81 7.2kW L2s, 69 19.2kW Ls, and 36 DCFCs. Under the CEC pathway 2030 CAP targets, this would meet 7% of the Level 2 infrastructure gap and 107% the remaining DCFC gap. Under the high DCFC pathway 2030 CAP targets, this would meet 76% of the Level 2 EVCS infrastructure gap and 10% of the DCFC infrastructure gap.

6.2 Concept Project Layouts
Suggested infrastructure improvements described in the previous section for City-owned parking lots are shown in conceptual layouts indicating potential placement of EVCS, new electrical infrastructure, recommended locations for ADA improvements, and associated high-level cost estimates (Appendix B). Appendix B also includes design drawings for locations at which EVCS has been recently installed, including Wallis Ranch Park and Don Biddle Community Park. Cost estimates account for existing make-ready infrastructure that is in place at Dublin Sports Grounds and the Civic Center.

The cost estimates shown in Table 18 and Table 19 assume the City owns and operates the EVCS, as is generally the case with existing EVCS. Table 18 also includes the suitability scores of each site based on the analysis discussed in Section 5. Section 8 explores alternative ownership models which may impact cost implications for installing EVCS. Cost estimates included in the City ownership model include estimated design costs, construction management costs, and contingency. Cost estimates do not account for potential grants, incentives or rebates that may be available at the time projects are developed and installed, nor do cost estimates account for potential tariff impacts given the uncertainty of their impact at the time of this Plan.
1985
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 40
Table 18. Conceptual Project Cost Estimates
Site Description Project Scope Suitability
Score
Cost
Estimate
Alamo Creek Park 4 19.2kW Level 2 EVCS 36 $329,000
Civic Center 13 7.2kW and 12 19.2kW Level 2 EVCS 41 $993,000 Corporation Yard 4 7.2kW Level 2 EVCS 36 $238,000
Don Biddle Community Park* 8 7.2kW Level 2 EVCS 40 $273,000 Dublin Library 10 7.2kW and 12 19.2kW Level 2 EVCS 41 $2,195,000 Dublin Sports Grounds 20 7.2 kW Level 2 EVCS and 9 DCFC 43 $2,309,000 Emerald Glen Park North Lot 9 19.2kW Level 2 EVCS and 4 DCFC 37 $1,642,000 Emerald Glen Park, The Wave 15 19.2kW Level 2 EVCS and 8 DCFC 37 $3,278,000 Fallon Sports Park – Lower Lot 2 19.2kW Level 2 EVCS and 3 DCFC 59 $1,234,000 Fallon Sports Park – Upper Lot 15 19.2kW Level 2 EVCS and 8 DCFC 59 $5,045,000 Fire Station #16 4 7.2kW Level 2 EVCS 36 $309,000
Fire Station #17 4 7.2kW Level 2 EVCS 36 $562,000
Fire Station #18 4 7.2kW Level 2 EVCS 20 $490,000
Senior Center 12 7.2kW Level 2 EVCS 63 $690,000
Shannon Park 4 DCFC 59 $1,776,000
Wallis Ranch Park* 2 7.2kW Level 2 EVCS 16 $62,000
Total 81 7.2kW, 69 19.2kW, and 36 DCFC $21,425,000
*Based on design plans completed by others, cost estimate is for incremental additions to existing EVCS Table 19. Conceptual Project Cost Estimates Breakdowns
Site Description Estimated
Construction Cost
Estimated
Design
Cost (10%)
Estimated
Construction
Management
Cost (10%)
Contingency
(20%)
Alamo Creek Park $228,000 $23,000 $23,000 $55,000
Civic Center $689,000 $69,000 $69,000 $166,000
Corporation Yard $164,000 $17,000 $17,000 $40,000
Don Biddle Community Park $189,000 $19,000 $19,000 $46,000 Dublin Library $1,523,000 $153,000 $153,000 $366,000
Dublin Sports Grounds $1,602,000 $161,000 $161,000 $385,000 Emerald Glen Park North Lot $1,140,000 $114,000 $114,000 $274,000 Emerald Glen Park, The Wave $2,275,000 $228,000 $228,000 $547,000 Fallon Sports Park –Lower Lot $856,000 $86,000 $86,000 $206,000 Fallon Sports Park –Upper Lot $3,502,000 $351,000 $351,000 $841,000 Fire Station #16 $213,000 $22,000 $22,000 $52,000
Fire Station #17 $390,000 $39,000 $39,000 $94,000
Fire Station #18 $340,000 $34,000 $34,000 $82,000
Senior Center $479,000 $48,000 $48,000 $115,000
Shannon Park $1,232,000 $124,000 $124,000 $296,000
Wallis Ranch Park $41,000 $5,000 $5,000 $11,000
Total $14,863,000 $1,493,000 $1,493,000 $3,576,000
1986
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 41
The conceptual layouts are intended to be used as a starting point for project development. The final design is subject to change as the project progresses. For example, the City may incorporate additional DCFCs to better align with the High DCFC pathway. As the City begins to design these projects, Table 20 summarizes best practices and considerations to keep in mind when developing public facing EVCS projects.

Table 20. EVCS Design Guidelines and Concept Plans Assumptions Category Criteria Basis of Design/ Assumption
Equipment
Siting
Placement of
chargers on a
parcel
Stalls closer to an identified utility power source are preferred to those further away. Where possible, prime parking stalls (those closest to main site amenity) may be avoided based on host preference to reserve prime parking for non-EVCS.

Visibility from
surrounding areas
Charger locations with better visibility from surrounding areas are preferred.

Equipment and
Stall Scoping
Quantity of L2
charging stalls
Concept plans generally target adding L2 EVCS to at least 10% of the total parking stalls at existing parking lots and are rounded up to the nearest whole number. It is recommended to install at least four L2 ports to realize cost efficiencies from minimum fixed costs such as a new electrical service. Future building code updates may require installing more EVCS depending on the project type and when the project is constructed.

Quantity of DCFC
charging stalls
Current building code allows the substitution of one DC fast charger port in lieu of five L2 charge ports. This ratio is similar to the ratio used in the CEC’s gas station model scenario.

Calculations for required number of EV spaces are rounded up to the nearest whole number. It is recommended to install at least four DCFC ports to realize cost efficiencies from minimum fixed costs such as a new electrical service.

Quantity of
accessible EV
charging stalls
The required quantity and type of accessible charging stalls is based on the California Building Code Section 11B-812 for van accessible, standard accessible, and ambulatory stalls.

Quantities are prescribed based on the total number of EV charging stalls at a facility. Stall dimensions, charger placement, grading, reach, and identification are described in the same code. Exemptions include fleets and sites with reserved or assigned parking spaces such as apartment buildings or
condominiums. See below for more information on ADA
requirements.

Type of charger
proposed, L2 or
DCFC
Locate DCFC at sites where DCFC already exist; where the quantity of proposed L2 chargers would be an excessive space burden on the property (20+ charging ports); or at sites with limited parking and with short dwell times (less than 1 hour).

Locate L2 chargers at locations with limited electric capacity or longer dwell times.

Civil Design Selection of
bollards vs. wheel
Wheel stops are scoped where possible based on cost efficiency.

Bollards are scoped where added protection is required, where 1987
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 42
22 EVCS Cable Protection Article
stops for charger
protection
DCFC chargers are proposed, or where wheel stop placement will not prevent a vehicle from hitting the charger.

Asphalt finish
treatment
Existing striping on asphalt surfaces assumed to be removed via sandblasting, slurry sealed, and re-striped as part of the construction project. Concrete surfaces assumed to be striped.

Asphalt depth Asphalt repairs over backfilled trenches assumed to be 7" thick.

Trenching
specification
Trenches assumed to be 24" wide and 36" deep. Backfill
assumed to be native soil compacted to minimum 95% under any finished surfaces and 90% in landscape.

Electrical
equipment
protection
Electrical panelboards and distribution equipment protected with standard concrete embedded or removable utility bollards at maximum spacing of 4'6."
Surface restoration Assumes disturbed surfaces (finished or unfinished) are restored to match the existing condition. Examples: turf removed for trenching is restored with sod, trenching through concrete is repaired with like, asphalt patch-backs are matched to existing asphalt specification.

Accessible Path of
Travel (POT)
Any existing POT is assumed to be code-compliant unless noted.

Accessible improvements related to EV charger installation end at the connection to an existing POT. Where accessibility rules apply and where there is no apparent POT, a new POT is
proposed; however, no determination of ADA-compliant slopes have been made.

Accessible charging
stall grading
Assumes new accessible charging stalls, access aisles, and POT will be regraded to code compliant slopes and taper/rise to match existing grades outside of the accessible area footprint.

No determination has been made as to the overall feasibility of regrade and match scope, only that asphalt and concrete removal/ replacement quantities are included in the project.

Site Protection
Temporary fencing
and trench plates
Assumes contractor use of temporary fencing and trench plates to secure work area and safe-off trenches for the duration of construction activities.

Vandalism
Mitigation
While not included as part of concept plans and cost estimates, additional asset protection to reduce the risk of vandalism can include security cameras, additional security lighting, or theft deterrent cables.
22 Electrical
Equipment
New service vs.
existing service
In most cases new utility service is assumed for proposed charging circuits to leverage EV-specific rates, utility make-ready programs (if available), and because existing panel loading information was not evaluated as part of the concept plan development. In some cases, existing service is proposed as an alternative option.

Service and panel
sizing
New electrical service power requirements are based on
anticipated new EV charging load in Kilovolt-Amperes (kVA) at 1988
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 43
ADA Requirements
Any time EVCS are installed at a publicly accessible location, California requires a certain minimum number of chargers to be ADA compliant. Current requirements are summarized in Table 21. ADA compliance can introduce design constraints as these standard and van accessible stalls must have access aisles with truncated domes at the curb, paths of travel, and be graded less than 2%. Sample ADA compliant layouts are shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10. Accessible EVCS stalls are not required for fleet charging or when parking stalls are for assigned personnel. Ambulatory stalls are accessible parking spaces designed for people with mobility disabilities who can walk but need extra room to maneuver, therefore parking stalls are 10 feet wide instead of 9 feet wide for a standard parking 480V or 208V AC. No charge management software or loadshedding capabilities have been assumed. Chargers are treated as "continuous loads" per the California Electrical Code.

Equipment specification conservatively assumes 480V utility feed to 480V meter main, dry step-down transformer, and 208V/120V distribution board for L2 chargers. L2 chargers are assumed to have a nominal output of 7.2kW at 240V AC. DCFC are assumed to have a nominal output of 150kW.

Equipment
footprint
Assumes footprint for concrete housekeeping pad for meter main service panel, transformer, and distribution panel for L2 chargers. No transformer or 208V distribution assumed for DCFC chargers. Wall-mount equipment assumed for small projects, where applicable.

Utility Power
Point of utility
connection
Where visible, anticipated point of connection to the utility distribution network is identified on the site plan (underground vault, existing pad-mount utility transformer, power pole, or pole-mount transformer). No loading or availability
determination is included in the evaluation. Viability of proposed utility connection is subject to utility review and local planning design.

Siting of new utility
structures and
equipment
When evident, a footprint of proposed utility equipment is shown on the site plan. In most cases, utility equipment is not shown as it is subject to local utility planning design.

Cost
Quantities Material takeoffs estimate the quantities of demolition/ export, wire, conduit, trenching and backfill, asphalt concrete paving, concrete pads, curb and gutter, bollards, landscape repair, chargers, etc.

Conduit materials All above grade conduit exposed to potential damage is assumed to be rigid metal conduit (RMC), above-grade interior conduit not subject to damage is assumed to be electrical metallic tubing (EMT), and below grade conduit is assumed to be polyvinyl chloride conduit (PVC).

Wire materials All wire is assumed to be stranded copper (CU) THHN or XHHW.

General conditions
(GCs)
GCs included in each individual project. Construction duration is assumed to be five weeks.
1989
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 44
stall. Ambulatory stalls do not need to be graded less than 2%, do not require an access aisle or path of travel, and do not require truncated domes at the curb.

Table 21. EVCS ADA Requirements
Number of
EVCS at a
Facility
Van Accessible Standard Accessible Ambulatory
1-4 1 0 0
4-25 1 1 0
26-50 1 1 1
51-75 1 2 2
76-100 1 3 3
101+
1, Plus 1 for each 300 or
fraction thereof, over
100
3, Plus 1 for each 60 or
fraction thereof, over
100
3, Plus 1 for each 50 or
fraction thereof, over
100
Figure 9. Sample Layout with 2 EV Chargers and 1 Van Accessible Stall 1990
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 45

6.3 Financial Analysis of City-Owned EVCS
For each conceptual layout, potential cash flows and costs to the City of the EVCS for a 10-year period were modeled which is the estimated useful life of the EVCS. The modeled cash flows are relevant if the City decides to own and operate the EVCS. The potential profitability will depend on several factors including the upfront cost of installation after any incentives or rebates, the cost of electricity at the site, annual networking and maintenance costs, the cost per kWh charged to users, EVCS utilization and uptime, and the value of LCFS credits. Copies of all the financial analyses are contained in Appendix C. Table 22 illustrates one example for the Civic Center.

Figure 10. Sample Layout with 5 EV Chargers, 1 Van Accessible Stall, and 1 Standard Accessible Stall 1991
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 46
Table 22. Civic Center EVCS Project Cash Flow Analysis
Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Upfront
Capital Cost
-$863,000
LCFS Credits $19,598 $20,577 $21,606 $22,687 $23,821 $25,012 $26,263 $27,576 $28,955 $30,402 $31,922 Maintenance
Cost
-$7,140 -$7,354 -$7,575 -$7,802 -$8,036 -$8,277 -$8,526 -$8,781 -$9,045 -$9,316 -$9,596 Networking
Fees
-$6,750 -$6,953 -$7,161 -$7,376 -$7,597 -$7,825 -$8,060 -$8,302 -$8,551 -$8,807 -$9,071 Charger
Utilization
11% 12% 13% 13% 14% 15% 15% 16% 17% 18% 19%
kW
Delivered
Per Year
$279,965 $293,963 $308,661 $324,094 $340,299 $357,314 $375,180 $393,939 $413,636 $434,318 $456,033 Charger Use
Cost / kWh
$0.35 $0.36 $0.37 $0.38 $0.39 $0.41 $0.42 $0.43 $0.44 $0.46 $0.47 Energy Cost
to City / kWh
$0.25 $0.26 $0.27 $0.27 $0.28 $0.29 $0.30 $0.31 $0.32 $0.33 $0.34 Annual
Charger
Profit
$27,997 $30,278 $32,746 $35,415 $38,301 $41,423 $44,798 $48,450 $52,398 $56,669 $61,287 Annual
Cashflow
-$829,296 $36,549 $39,616 $42,923 $46,489 $50,332 $54,476 $58,942 $63,757 $68,948 $74,542 NPV (using
5% discount
rate)
-$427,893
Cumulative
Cashflow
-$829,296 -$792,747 -$753,131 -$710,207 -$663,719 -$613,387 -$558,911 -$499,969 -$436,211 -$367,264 -$292,722 The financial analysis for the conceptual EVCS projects assumes the following:
• For sites where EVCs will be on their own meter and are rated for less than 100kW of nameplate load, the average energy charge is assumed to be $0.24/kWh. The average energy charge is the average kWh cost from multiple time of use periods, before demand and service charges. Subscription and demand charges are based on total nameplate load.

Nameplate load is the sum of the maximum output for which the EVCS is rated. It is also assumed that all chargers are in use simultaneously, at least once per month. • For sites where EVCS will be on their own meter and have greater than 100 kW of nameplate load, the average energy charge is assumed to be $0.25/kWh. Subscription and demand charges are based on total nameplate load.
• For sites where EVCS will be added to existing building meters, the average cost of electricity is based on 12 months or more of billing data. EVCS loads are expected to be small relative to building loads and thus not significantly alter the load shape and peak demand of the existing buildings.
• Annual operating costs of $500 per charging station for a maintenance agreement and $270 per port for networking fees, based on estimates from ChargePoint quotes. • Inflation and utility rate escalation are assumed to be 3% per year. It is also assumed that Dublin increases the user-facing cost of electricity in line with utility rate increases. • LCFS credit value is assumed to be $0.07 per kWh.
• L2 chargers are priced at $0.35/kWh and DCFC are priced at $0.50/kWh, which are typical price points for publicly accessible EVCS in Dublin. Sites with both L2 and DCFC chargers assume an average charge rate of $0.43/kWh. These are adjusted for each site in the sensitivity analysis. As a next step, the City should conduct a more detailed evaluation of DCFC pricing structures.
1992
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 47
• Year 1 utilization is assumed to start at 10% and increase by 5% per year over 10 years. • For sites where EVCS are expected to be on their own meter, it is assumed that the EVCS will be on the Ava BEV-2 rate tariff (Appendix G), which provides discounted rates for EV charging loads. This rate is only available for utility services that have only EV chargers on them.

Sensitivity Analyses
Sensitivity analyses were conducted that adjust the price charged to customers along with potential scenarios for charger utilization to provide a sense of the range of potential long-term costs of EVCS projects. Table 23 illustrates this for the Civic Center. The dollar values within the grid represent the cumulative 10-year cash flow for the corresponding Year 1 utilization and Year 1 price charged to EVCS users, including the initial capital cost of the project. For example, if the City priced EVCS charging at the Civic Center at $0.40/kWh, the Year 1 utilization was 13% and prices and utilization escalated per previously stated assumptions, the City would net an estimated $77,948 at the end of 10 years. The sensitivity analysis should be used as a guide for how to set pricing based on utilization, which the City should review at least annually, targeting to break even over the life of the charger. If a net surplus is achieved, it is recommended those funds be allocated to fund future EVCS replacements or be put towards other EVCS efforts throughout the City.

Table 23. Sensitivity Analysis For Civic Center EVCS, 10-Yr. Cash Flow Price to
Charge
EV
($/kWh)
Civic Center EVCS Utilization Rate
3% 5% 7% 9% 11% 13% 15% 17% 20%
$0.25 -$1,097,775 -$1,049,025 -$1,000,275 -$951,525 -$902,775 -$854,024 -$805,274 -$763,697 -$723,930 $0.28 -$1,060,761 -$987,335 -$913,909 -$840,482 -$767,056 -$693,630 -$620,204 -$558,035 -$499,549 $0.31 -$1,023,747 -$925,645 -$827,542 -$729,440 -$631,338 -$533,236 -$435,133 -$352,374 -$275,168 $0.34 -$986,733 -$863,955 -$741,176 -$618,398 -$495,620 -$372,841 -$250,063 -$146,713 -$50,787 $0.37 -$949,719 -$802,264 -$654,810 -$507,356 -$359,901 -$212,447 -$64,992 $58,949 $173,595 $0.40 -$912,705 -$740,574 -$568,444 -$396,313 -$224,183 -$52,052 $120,078 $264,610 $397,976 $0.43 -$875,691 -$678,884 -$482,078 -$285,271 -$88,465 $108,342 $305,148 $470,272 $622,357 $0.46 -$838,676 -$617,194 -$395,711 -$174,229 $47,254 $268,736 $490,219 $675,933 $846,738 $0.49 -$801,662 -$555,504 -$309,345 -$63,186 $182,972 $429,131 $675,289 $881,595 $1,071,119 $0.52 -$764,648 -$493,814 -$222,979 $47,856 $318,691 $589,525 $860,360 $1,087,256 $1,295,500 $0.55 -$727,634 -$432,123 -$136,613 $158,898 $454,409 $749,920 $1,045,430 $1,292,918 $1,519,882 The Year 1 charger utilization rate is assumed to vary between 3% and 20% based on feedback from Ava Community Energy. Utilization is defined as the number of hours in a year that the EVCS is in use and dispensing electricity to a vehicle. For sites that add EVCS when there is existing EVCS, the financial analysis assumes the same utilization as the existing EVCS. For sites with no existing chargers, Ava estimates for year 1 charger utilization rates were used. Utilization is assumed to grow 5% per year as EV adoption increases. This is expected to be a conservative estimate as major EVCS operators like EVGO have seen DCFC electricity dispensed increase from 201kWh/day per stall in 2023 to 285kWh/day per stall in 2025, an average annual growth rate of 18.8%. Other reports also show EVCS utilization rates increasing by double digits in recent years. 23 23 EV Charging Utilization Trends - Stable Insights Article 1993
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 48
EVCS charging generally starts to provide net income when utilization reaches 15%, though it will depend on the average cost of electricity, the price charged to users, and other operating and maintenance costs.
24 When EVCS utilization starts to exceed 30%, the EVCS tends to be occupied too frequently, and drivers may begin to avoid them. When EVCS utilization exceeds 30%, it may be a sign that additional EVCS at that location are needed.

6.3.1 Cost Recovery Analysis
A pricing analysis was conducted to see what rates the City would need to charge customers to recoup costs under different scenarios. Estimated costs of electricity are based on either historical energy bills (at the time the analysis was conducted) or forecasted blended costs if the EVCS are on a new electric service. Blended rates for historical energy costs at each location vary depending on the rate schedule the building is on (as applicable), annual energy use, and load shape.

The first scenario assessed what rate would need to be charged to pay for electricity and networking fees. The next scenario analyzed the rate needed to pay for electricity, networking and maintenance costs. The final scenario analyzed what rate would be needed to pay for electricity, networking, maintenance costs, and the cost of installing the chargers. The results for each scenario and site are shown in Table 24. These scenarios exclude any potential fees that the network provider may charge for processing the transaction, which are typically in addition to networking fees. This fee can vary by network provider but typically it is around 10%. The analysis should be updated when EVCS are installed at each site to align with current pricing and any charging fees from the network provider.

Sites with both Level 2 and DCFCs may require a more detailed review of electricity prices and utilization assumptions to refine pricing for Level 2 EVCS versus DCFCs. The City should evaluate this as new projects are commissioned, referencing utilization data from other City owned chargers and electricity prices at the time projects are developed.

Table 24. Pricing Analysis for EV Charger Projects
Site
Average
Cost of
Electricity
($/kWh)
Fee to Recover
Electricity and
Networking
($/kWh)
Fee to Recover
Electricity,
Networking, and
Maintenance ($/kWh)
Fee to Recover
Electricity, Networking,
Maintenance, and
Construction ($/kWh)
Civic Center (L2) $0.25 $0.27 $0.29 $0.47
Library (L2)* $0.37 $0.39 $0.41 $0.88
Corp Yard (L2) $0.24 $0.28 $0.32 $0.87
Senior Center (L2)* $0.35 $0.39 $0.42 $0.97
Shannon Park (DCFC) $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.43
Fire Station 16 (L2)* $0.38 $0.42 $0.45 $1.18
Fire Station 17 (L2)* $0.38 $0.42 $0.45 $1.78
Fire Station 18 (L2)* $0.38 $0.42 $0.47 $1.63
Dublin Sports Ground
(L2+DCFC) $0.25 $0.27 $0.31 $0.70
Emerald Glen Park (L2+DCFC) $0.25 $0.26 $0.27 $0.53
The Wave (L2+DCFC)* $0.25 $0.26 $0.28 $0.80
Fallon Sports Park Upper
(L2+DCFC) $0.25 $0.26 $0.28 $0.72
24 EV charging stations are proving to be a profitable business, after all Fortune Article 1994
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 49
Site
Average
Cost of
Electricity
($/kWh)
Fee to Recover
Electricity and
Networking
($/kWh)
Fee to Recover
Electricity,
Networking, and
Maintenance ($/kWh)
Fee to Recover
Electricity, Networking,
Maintenance, and
Construction ($/kWh)
Fallon Sports Park Lower
(L2+DCFC) $0.25 $0.25 $0.27 $0.60
Alamo Creek Park (L2) $0.24 $0.26 $0.27 $0.56 *EVCS is assumed to be connected to the existing service To determine how the rates in Table 24 compare with the rates at nearby charging locations, available pricing on Plugshare was reviewed for publicly accessible EVCS in Dublin and surrounding communities. Based on typical price ranges as of May 2025:
• Pricing for Level 2 EVCS varied between $0.25- $0.39 per kWh, though some sites offered free charging and some sites were priced as high as $0.75 per kWh. • Pricing for DCFC typically varied between $0.24-$0.63 per kWh. One notable difference between DCFC pricing structures compared to L2 pricing is DCFC pricing is more likely to vary based on either the time of day or the power output into the vehicle. L2 pricing is generally a flat rate due to lower energy demand.

Based on a review of available pricing, the City could reasonably charge enough to cover ongoing costs (i.e., electricity, networking, and maintenance costs) for most sites and still be cost competitive with other EVCS in Dublin and surrounding communities. If the City elected to pursue full cost recovery and charge rates to recoup construction costs, the rates would exceed average area pricing and may discourage the public from utilizing the City-owned chargers.

6.4 Curbside Charging
Traditionally, EVCS are installed in off-street parking lots. While not explored in detail in this Plan, the City may consider expanding EVCS to curbside parking. Since cities control the rights-of-way, curbs are an additional land asset the public sector has available to add EV infrastructure. The suitability analysis results may help identify areas in Dublin that score well but do not have parking lots nearby that can accommodate EVCS.

One potential advantage of curbside charging can be reduced installation costs if EVCS can be mounted to existing streetlight poles which can reduce trenching costs. Curbside charging is not subject to ADA requirements, which can reduce civil upgrade costs. However, there may be certain challenges when considering curbside EVCS placement on streetlights. Most streetlights use single phase power which is not compatible with commercial EVCS. A streetlight review would need to be conducted to determine which may have the appropriate infrastructure to support EVCS. Streetlights that do not have the appropriate infrastructure may make good candidates for pole-mounted EVCS if they are located near utility transformers or underground vaults. Another consideration is that streetlights have their own rate tariff with limited metering, so additional metering would be needed to properly account for electricity dispensed to EVs. Pole-mounting EVCS on utility power poles may prove more advantageous as the pole may have a transformer on it with spare capacity that can 1995
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 50
accommodate the EVCS, as shown in Figure 11, though this would require close coordination with the utility. 25
Curbside EVCS may require additional signage or curb management. Parking policies will need to determine whether spaces in front of a curbside EVCS are reserved only for vehicles that are actively charging or are available to any vehicle at any time. Unrestricting parking in front of curbside EVCS may reduce potential pushback from drivers without EVs but may also reduce the confidence of potential EV drivers that chargers will be available when they need it. An adjustment period could be provided by leaving parking unrestricted for the first six to twelve months after EVCS installation.

Curbside EVCS parking restrictions should be considered along with any existing parking restrictions at the site. If curbside EVCS are implemented, parking and charging limits in heavily trafficked commercial areas during peak times should be considered, with a recommended maximum duration of 4 hours. This is typical of other Level 2 EVCS in Dublin and creates enough turnover so that multiple vehicles can use the EVCS while still allowing drivers to get a sufficient charge to get to their next destination. It is not recommended to set time limits for overnight charging to allow people who do not have chargers at home or work to get a full charge. Time limits can be managed through the networking platform and would need to be enforced to be effective.

Other considerations for curbside EVCS include:
25 Portland General Electric Filing Notice Advice Letter No. 20-32 Figure 11. Curbside EVCS on Utility Pole
1996
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 51
• Proximity to residential and commercial
areas. High-density and/or multi-family
residential locations within 0.25 to 0.5
miles of commercial districts make ideal
locations for curbside EVCS. Strategic
placement in these zones allows the
EVCS to serve both daytime commercial
patrons and overnight residential users,
thereby maximizing utilization.
• Charging cable length and accessibility.

To improve accessibility, extendedlength cables (minimum 25 feet) should be installed. This enables vehicles
parked one space away from the charger to connect, which is important if there is little to no parking enforcement at curbside EVCS.
• Charger type selection. Level 2 chargers are generally better suited for pole-mounted curbside applications than DCFC due to typical power availability at curbside locations, longer vehicle dwell times, and smaller equipment footprints.
• Community engagement and parking management. Curbside EVCS implementation should include proactive community outreach. Public input should be gathered on proposed curbside EVCS locations, and plans for managing EVCS-related parking spaces, including any changes to existing parking restrictions, should be communicated.

Future Curbside EVCS Opportunity
Additional EVCS will need to be sited and
installed, beyond what is identified in this
Plan, to meet the City’s long-term goals. As a
next step, the City can consider a deeper
study on curbside EVCS opportunities near
commercial and multifamily locations to help
meet long-term EVCS targets. The City would
need to consider curbside parking
management to implement curbside EVCS.
1997
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 52

7. Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement
Community outreach and engagement was conducted to inform the EV Infrastructure Plan. A survey was conducted to understand the general sentiment towards EVs and where community members would like EVCS to be installed.

7.1 Dublin EV Adoption Survey
Community feedback was gathered by survey to inform this Plan and provide guidance on which sites should be prioritized for EVCS installation. An online survey was hosted from May through June 2023, for residents and business owners to answer sixteen multiple-choice and open-ended questions about electric vehicle ownership, priorities in charging station locations, and specific motivators and concerns regarding EV use. The project team received 80 responses. Summary results for some key questions are illustrated in Figure 12. The top motivators for EV adoption were financial benefits from reduced fuel costs and reducing the environmental impact of driving. However, range anxiety and insufficient public charging are still major barriers to increasing EV ownership. Respondents indicated they want to see more EVCS in a wide variety of locations, but most notably in areas of recreation, commercial/retail locations, and public parking lots. A full set of results is contained in Appendix F.

Figure 12. EV Survey Feedback
1998
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 53
In the open-ended question and answer portion of the survey, several themes emerged, as outlined below.
• Battery concerns. Respondents expressed general concerns about battery sourcing, disposal, and safety.
• Charging infrastructure for non-Tesla owners. Many noted a lack of charging infrastructure for non-Tesla owners, though this has improved as Tesla opened up its network to other automakers.
• Charging access at multi-family dwellings. There was a strong desire for increased charging at multi-family dwellings.
• Vandalism and parking enforcement. Concerns were raised about vandalism and enforcement related to EV parking, highlighting the need for clear signage and effective enforcement of EV parking rules.

7.2 Community Events
The City expanded its EV outreach beyond the online survey by attending public events such as the Dublin farmer’s markets, the St Patrick’s Day Festival, and Dublin Pride Volunteer Day. Staff used poster boards to attract attention, spark conversation, and encourage online survey participation, while also raising awareness about the City’s EV infrastructure planning efforts. Figure 13 shows an example of the poster boards used at events.

Figure 13. EV Posterboards Used During
Outreach Events
1999
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 54

8. EV Infrastructure Ownership and Maintenance Models

8.1 EV Infrastructure Ownership Models
This section discusses EV infrastructure ownership models available and makes recommendations on how they may be applicable to different project types (Table 25). Each ownership model comes with its own benefits and drawbacks and allocates staff time and financial risk differently to each party involved, as indicated in Table 25. Each ownership model is discussed in more detail below.

For non–host-owned projects, partners should work together to ensure sites meet local design needs (e.g., payment options and plug types). When considering different ownership models, it is important to note that eligibility for grants or incentives depends on who owns the charging stations. Since funding usually goes to the station owner, projects without public ownership may not qualify for some grants.

Table 25. EV Ownership Models
Line Item Host Owned Charging as a
Service (CaaS)
Hybrid HostVendor Owned Vendor Owned
Service Model Host owns and
operates
Vendor owns and
operates via
subscription
Shared ownership Vendor owns and
operates
Ideal for:

Pilot projects,
owner desires to
control charging
revenue
Large fleet
electrification
projects
Sites that want
limited control on
charger Operation
and Maintenance
(O&M)
Sites with very high
expected EVCS
utilization
Installation
Costs Host Vendor Host or Vendor Vendor
Electricity Costs Host Vendor Vendor Vendor
Support &
Maintenance
Costs
Host Vendor Vendor Vendor
Charging
Revenue Goes to Host Varies Split with Vendor
Majority
Percentage to
Vendor
Pricing Controls Host Vendor Vendor Vendor
Contract Term Contract Typically
Not Required
Contract Typically
Required
Contract Typically
Required
Contract Typically
Required
Network Fees Yes No Yes Yes
Monthly
Subscription Fee No Yes No No

8.1.1 Host Owned
The host owned approach offers the greatest control over EVCS operations and the potential for revenue generation, but it also places the highest level of risk on the owner. In this model, the site host is responsible for all upfront and ongoing costs associated with installing and operating the 2000
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 55
chargers. While initial capital expenses may be partially offset through grants, rebates, incentives, or charging revenue, the host remains responsible for ongoing networking and maintenance costs.

An advantage of owning EVCS infrastructure is the ability for the host to generate LCFS credits, which can be sold to generate additional revenue. However, small generators such as the City of Dublin would likely need to engage a broker to facilitate the sale of these credits. In 2025, the LCFS market averaged nearly 6.6 million credits traded each month, but with only about 373 transactions monthly, each transaction involved over 17,000 credits on average. The trades are largely driven by large-scale entities, such as renewable fuel producers that generate thousands of credits monthly, as well as brokers who aggregate credits from smaller generators. 26 Another advantage of the host owned model is the site host determines the pricing structure for the EVCS. Considering that site hosts are responsible for on-going costs associated with the chargers, hosts should review charger utilization and operating costs annually to adjust pricing if needed to recoup costs. The City may assign these duties to existing or new personnel dedicated to managing EVCS equipment or contract out the responsibility.

A disadvantage of the host owned model for municipalities with limited staff resources is the staff time required to oversee and implement on-going operations and maintenance and to complete mandated reporting. Third party or hybrid ownership models may provide relief on staff resources, however, it remains advisable to use the host-owned model for dedicated fleet-charging applications, where operational oversight and high reliability are critical.

8.1.2 Vendor Owned
On the opposite end of the spectrum from host-owned models is a fully vendor owned and operated model. For sites where EVCS is expected to be highly utilized, easements or leased parking spaces may be provided to third parties where the vendor retains sole ownership of the charging stations and is responsible for maintaining them. In this model, the vendor generally is responsible for all upfront and on-going costs of the EVCS and retains complete control over the operation and pricing structure it sets for users. The vendor also typically retains all LCFS credits that may be generated from the stations. This model removes financial risk from the site host, allows the amenity to be provided to patrons at no cost to the site host, and adds potential revenue streams from leasing out parking spaces or revenue sharing in the electricity sales. Lease terms may vary by vendor, but typically a site host can expect up to a 10-year term, as that is the estimated useful life of EVCS.

Vendors may not be willing to pursue this option for every site. Since the vendor will be looking for a return on their investment, they will conduct their own analysis of potential locations that they expect to yield the highest charger utilization and potential profit. Vendors may also have their own project parameters and typical scopes that they have found to be successful. For example, EVGO typically only installs DCFCs and generally aims to install between six to ten DCFCs at a site.

The City of Fairfield provides an example of a vendor owned model. The City of Fairfield partnered with EVCS Inc. to install a total of thirty-one DC Fast chargers and twenty-seven Level 2 chargers 26 LCFS Transfer Activity Data
2001
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 56
across eight sites.
27 Under the agreement, EVCS Inc. is responsible for installing, operating, and maintaining the chargers for 5 years, with the option to extend the agreement to 10 years. In exchange, the City of Fairfield provides an easement to EVCS Inc. and receives a revenue share of $0.05/kWh of electricity dispensed to users. This model eliminates the need for capital investment by a city and introduces a potential new source of revenue. This provides a useful example of how a site host can benefit from EVCS without requiring up front capital.

It is recommended that the City pursue a vendor-owned and operated model for its next major phase of publicly accessible electric vehicle charging infrastructure. This can be initiated through the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) that outlines a list of preferred sites for EVCS deployment, with the intent that selected vendors will own and operate the charging stations over a period of 5 to 10 years. The RFP may incorporate the conceptual project designs developed as part of this initiative to serve as a reference point for potential bidders. If the City moves forward with this approach, it is advisable to remain flexible regarding final site designs, including the number, location, and power level of the EVCS units.

8.1.3 Hybrid Ownership
A hybrid ownership model combines elements of both host-owned and vendor-owned approaches, with shared ownership of the electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS) between the site host and the vendor over the lifespan of the equipment. This model typically involves more extensive upfront negotiations to define the responsibilities of each party, including cost-sharing arrangements for installation and ongoing operations, authority over charging rates, and allocation of charging revenue.

In most cases, the vendor assumes responsibility for maintenance, and due to their potential share in the charging revenue, they may be more motivated to ensure timely repairs and minimize downtime.

As with the fully vendor-owned model, vendors participating in a hybrid model often prefer sites with high expected utilization rates to justify their investment.

The City explored this model by entering into an agreement in May 2023 with California Automotive Retailing Group, Inc., a local car dealership as part of the General Motors (GM) Dealer Community Charging Program. The program installed ten EV Connect Level 2 EVCS at Don Biddle Park. Under the agreement:
 The dealership and GM paid for all upfront costs to install ten Level 2 EVCS.  Chargers are expected to be in operation for ten years, at which point GM will bear removal costs. If the City wants to continue operation after ten years, the City may work with EV Connect to replace the charging stations.
 GM is responsible for maintaining the EVCS for the first five years of the agreement. The City will be responsible for maintaining the EVCS for the last five years of the agreement.  The City is responsible for electricity costs and can set charging rates to recover the cost of electricity.
27 EVCS and the City of Fairfield open their first EV charging site Article 2002
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 57

8.1.4 Charging as a Service
Charging as a Service (CaaS) is a financing and operations model that may be appropriate in certain contexts, particularly for fleet charging applications, though it can also be adapted for public use.

Under the CaaS model, the site host pays little to no upfront capital and instead pays the vendor over time through a subscription.

For public charging, as demonstrated by the City’s existing arrangement with ChargePoint at the Dublin Library, the model may involve a flat annual subscription fee that is not dependent on station utilization. This allows upfront costs to be spread over several years. In such arrangements, charging revenue may be retained to help offset subscription expenses.

In fleet applications, the CaaS vendor recovers infrastructure investment through ongoing energy sales, typically over a 5 to 10-year term, aligning with EVCS equipment warranties and expected service life. Vendors generally conduct a fleet electrification analysis to estimate monthly or annual energy consumption and may require minimum usage guarantees. This model tends to be financially viable for fleets with consistent, high usage, such as school buses or transit fleets, but may be less suitable for operations with variable or low utilization, such as public works fleets.

CaaS vendors typically cover electricity and maintenance costs under fleet-focused models. For public-facing models the site host generally covers electricity costs and retains the revenue.

Contracts often include up-time guarantees, with higher guarantees resulting in higher subscription fees due to increased risk for the vendor. Up-time requirements should be negotiated to balance performance expectations and cost. To manage electricity expenses, vendors may implement load management strategies.

At the end of the contract term, site hosts may have the option to purchase the EVCS infrastructure.

Alternatively, agreements may be renewed for an additional 5 to10 years, potentially with upgraded equipment. ChargePoint’s basic subscription model does not include a buyout option, but the equipment can be removed at no cost to the site host when the term ends. To minimize staff involvement and capital expenditures on EVCS projects, expanding the subscription model could be an option for sites that are not feasible under vendor-owned or hybrid models.

8.1.5. Ava Community Energy Partnership
Ava Community Energy (Ava) serves as the electricity provider for the City of Dublin. One of Ava’s primary objectives is to support the transition to clean, renewable energy sources. As part of this mission, Ava is actively exploring opportunities to install, own, and operate DCFC hubs throughout its service territory to promote the adoption of EVs. To ensure cost effectiveness and operational efficiency, ideal charging hubs would consist of 10 to 20 DCFC units. These hubs are typically most effective in locations where vehicle dwell times are under one hour, enabling higher turnover and improved charger utilization.

The initial focus has been on publicly owned properties. Municipal sites offer strategic benefits, as cities are often willing to grant easements at no cost, significantly reducing project expenses. These cost savings can be passed on to EV users in the form of lower charging rates. For partner cities, the benefit lies in the deployment of additional fast-charging infrastructure at no cost for construction or ongoing maintenance. In addition, Ava may offer DCFC charging at more competitive rates than 2003
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 58
private providers, which often include markups to generate profit. This cost advantage has the potential to make EV charging more accessible and affordable for consumers. However, identifying suitable sites requires the availability of large parking areas with desirable nearby amenities to accommodate the desired number of chargers.

8.2 Charger Maintenance
EVCS are assets that must be maintained throughout their useful life. When EV charging stations are frequently out of service, it undermines consumer confidence in electric vehicles, particularly if they are unable to charge at home. Since 2022, approximately one in five EV drivers experienced a problem charging at a publicly available EVCS (Figure 14). 28 To ensure consumer confidence in EVCS reliability, EVCS owners should have a plan outlining how the EVCS will remain functional throughout its useful life. While generally minimal, proper charger preventative maintenance, functional testing, and repairs are key to maximizing the use of the equipment. Routine maintenance activities typically involve conducting visual inspections, cleaning display screens and charging connectors to remove dirt and debris, ensuring proper connections of electrical components, performing functional tests for voltage, current, and output, and replacing filters (for DC fast chargers). Software issues can typically be resolved by rebooting the chargers or coordinating with the charger manufacturer to install software updates. Most EVCS manufacturers offer extended warranties for up to five years, which generally covers normal wear and tear on the equipment but may not cover damage due to improper use or vandalism. Some cities have reported vandalism or misuse of publicly available EVCS, so site hosts should budget accordingly for unforeseen repairs. Industry stakeholders have suggested a good rule of thumb is to budget 10% of the charger equipment cost for annual repairs and maintenance.

Charging station hosts may elect to train in-house staff to maintain the EVCSs or contract out the service. EVCS vendors may offer maintenance packages where a technician will conduct inspections of the equipment and replace equipment components as needed for up to 5 years. Maintenance 28 EV Charging User Experience Article - JD Power
Figure 14. U.S. Public EVCS Charging Issues Over Time
2004
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 59
agreements may also be contracted with independent third parties. Maintenance agreements will typically include one to two inspections per year. Charging station owners should refer to specific equipment specifications to determine which maintenance activities are required and at what frequency.
2005
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 60

9. Funding Opportunities
The section provides a snapshot of some of the EV and EVCS funding opportunities available at the time this Plan was developed. Funding opportunities provided below may be used by the public or private sector to reduce the cost to install EV infrastructure or purchase EVs for municipal and commercial fleets. Funding opportunities and requirements are dynamic and subject to change. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and Ava’s Incentive Finder, which are discussed in Section 9.1 below, provide up-to-date information regarding active funding opportunities. Section 9.2 lists funding opportunities that are available as of publication of this Plan.

9.1 Alternative Fuels Data Center
The DOE’s AFDC maintains a comprehensive database of federal, state, utility, and local funding and financing opportunities for EVs and EVCS (AFDC Laws and Incentives). Project developers are encouraged to consult the AFDC website early in the planning process to identify potential funding opportunities suited to their specific project. The site allows users to search for incentives, rebates, financing options, and relevant policies across a range of fuel types and end-user categories. (Figure 15).

Figure 15. AFDC EV Incentive Search and Filter Feature

9.1.1 Ava Community Energy’s Incentive Finder
Ava maintains a savings and incentive finder on its website for a variety of energy programs, including incentives for EV purchases and EVCS installation (Figure 16Figure 16). 29 The tool searches
state, local, and federal incentives opportunities based on a variety of factors including location, household size, income, homeownership status, and tax filing status. 29 Ava's Incentive Finder
2006
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 61
Figure 16. Ava's Incentive Finder

9.2 Direct Incentives and Rebates
Table 26 summarizes available incentives and rebate programs available as of March 2026. Funding programs are often in high demand and have associated restrictions, such as prioritizing low income communities. Some of these funding sources are explained in further detail in this section.

Table 26. EVCS Funding opportunities
Entity Program Name Summary Other Notes
California
Energy
Commission
CAleVIP Provides rebates for EVCS Program adjusts guidelines annually.

California Air
Resources
Board
Hybrid and ZeroEmission Truck and
Bus Voucher
Incentive Project
Voucher for qualifying low or
zero emission medium and
heavy-duty vehicle purchases.

Voucher issued at point of sale
through qualified vendors and
manufacturers. Value varies by
vehicle and technology type

9.2.1 Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Under Assembly Bill 32, in 2009 California created the LCFS program to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector. The goal is to decrease the carbon intensity of the California transportation fuel pool by 20% by 2030 and provide financial incentives for low carbon alternative fuel sources.
30 On November 8, 2024, the program was renewed and extended to decrease the carbon intensity of the California transportation fuel pool by 90% by 2045. Fuel providers can generate credits for producing low carbon fuels, including dispensed electricity from EVCS. 30 LCFS Overview
2007
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 62
Assembly Bill 32 mandates that fuel data and metered energy usage must be reported quarterly to the California Air Resources Board. Site hosts can coordinate with the EVCS manufacturer so that energy usage is automatically sent to brokers who can facilitate the sale of credits generated each quarter. The total number and value of the credits generated will be impacted by the carbon intensity of the electricity used, the amount of electricity dispensed from the chargers, and the overall supply and demand of credits in the market. Credit values have fluctuated over time, at one point peaking at $200/credit. In 2025 credit prices averaged around $60 credit, amounting to $0.06-

0.07 per kWh assuming carbon free electricity.
31 Public and private sector EVCS owners can use LCFS
revenue to offset EVS infrastructure costs, hardware costs, and other ongoing costs (maintenance, networking fees, etc.) not recovered by selling electricity. 31 https://www.neste.com/investors/market-data/lcfs-credit-price 2008
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 63

10. Policy Considerations and Next Steps
This Plan outlines a strategic roadmap to expand EV charging infrastructure, establish measurable targets, and implement actionable strategies to support the transition to cleaner transportation. The Plan addresses the growing demand for EVs, highlights their environmental benefits, such as reducing GHG emissions and improving air quality, and emphasizes the economic opportunities associated with building out charging networks. While EV infrastructure development is still in the early stages in Dublin, the City has already initiated key efforts to support EV While EV infrastructure development is still in the early stages in Dublin, the City has already initiated key efforts to support EV adoption, including:
• Policy Implementation. Dublin has adopted Tier 2 voluntary CALGreen standards as mandatory, which requires increased EV infrastructure investments in new developments.

This proactive approach helps avoid costly retrofits in the future. • Charger Installations. Public EV charging stations have already been installed at several Cityowned facilities, establishing a foundation for further growth.

While the City has shown progress and leadership by taking these actions, further steps must be taken in order to meet CAP goals.

Projected Needs and Long-Term Vision
To align with CAP goals, a significant increase in charging infrastructure is required by 2030 and 2045, potentially amounting to hundreds or even thousands of chargers (Table 27). While the City is not expected to develop this infrastructure independently, it has a vital role in supporting and enabling project development. Numerous near-term deployment opportunities have been identified in this Plan; however, to fully meet long-term targets, additional EVCS projects will be necessary (Table 28).

Table 27. Dublin EVCS Targets for all Scenarios and Pathways Year and Scenario
CEC Estimated/ High
Level 2 Pathway
CEC Gas Station/Mixed
Level 2-DCFC Pathway
High DCFC
Pathway
Level 2 DCFC Level 2 DCFC Level 2 DCFC
2030 California Target 2,213 103 1,163 267 387 389
2030 Dublin CAP Target 2,405 112 1,264 290 420 423
2035 California Target 5,088 229 2,055 475 884 888
2045 Dublin CAP Target 8,318 374 3,359 777 1,446 1,451
Table 28. EVCS Opportunities Towards Meeting the City 2045 CAP Goals Project Type
L2 EVCS
Port
Potential
DCFC
Port
Potential
High Level 2
Pathway
Mixed Level
2/DCFC Pathway
High DCFC
Pathway
% of L2
gap
% of
DCFC
gap
% of
L2
gap
% of
DCFC gap
%
of
L2
gap
% of
DCFC
gap
Developments in progress 90 0 1% 0% 3% 0% 7% 0%
City Sites (see Section 6.1) 150 36 2% 12% 5% 5% 12% 3% Private Sites (See Section 5.2) 156 36 2% 12% 5% 5% 13% 3% Total 395 72 5% 24% 13% 10% 32% 6%
2009
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 64
As Dublin continues expanding its EVCS network on City-owned property, the Plan identifies several ownership and partnership pathways, each with implications for cost, reliability, staff workload, and long-term sustainability. Moving forward, the City can use these findings to guide a phased, strategic approach.

Evaluating the Role of City Ownership
The City has experience owning and operating EVCS. While this provides full control, it has also highlighted operational challenges, including maintaining charger uptime, setting charging rates and managing vendor coordination. Although generating profit is not a core goal, ensuring system reliability is essential for public confidence. The experience to date suggests that full City ownership may not be desired, as it demands staff time and resources to manage.

Prioritizing Third-Party Ownership Models
For future installations, third-party ownership and operation is suggested to be the preferred path.

This approach shifts maintenance, performance, and operational risk to private vendors while still enabling the City to expand public charging. To initiate these projects, Dublin can issue Requests for Proposals (RFPs) or Requests for Qualifications (RFQs) using the conceptual sites plans identified in this Plan as a starting point. However, vendors may prioritize only high-utilization sites or propose scope adjustments, such as focusing exclusively on DCFCs. The City should expect and plan for this variability by building flexibility into project design and negotiations.

Partnering with Ava Community Energy
If private developers are not interested in certain locations, partnering with Ava Community Energy offers a strong alternative. Ava typically seeks lower financial returns than private vendors and has a strategic focus on DCFC, aligning well with the City’s long-term goals. While these projects may not generate lease revenue, they support high-impact charging infrastructure deployment.

Considering Hybrid Ownership Models
When neither third-party nor Ava partnerships are feasible, hybrid models may provide another viable pathway. The City’s former partnership with California Automotive Retailing Group, Inc. (CARG), where costs, revenue, and maintenance responsibilities are shared, could serve as a replicable model, although CARG has determined they no longer desire to participate in agreements such as these creating questions about the viability of hybrid ownership models. If hybrid models remain a viable solution, they would allow the City to retain partial involvement without shouldering the full operational burden.

Recommended Next Steps
To close infrastructure gaps and advance the City’s EV readiness, several near-term actions are recommended:

1. Expand Deployment at Key City Sites
Continue installing chargers at high-priority municipal locations identified in this Plan, with a preference for vendor-owned or third-party models to reduce long-term operational costs. 2010
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 65

2. Issue RFP for Third Party EVCS Owner Operators. To expand EVCS at minimal upfront capital costs to the City, the City should issue an RFP for EVCS vendors to install, maintain, and operate EVCS at City sites, using the site plans developed in this Plan as a starting point on the final scope.

3. Engage Private Sector Partners
Use the site suitability analysis to approach and negotiate with high-scoring private properties that could host publicly accessible charging. Connect with third-party EVCS vendors to reduce site host capital needs.

4. Explore Curbside Charging Feasibility
Conduct a focused assessment to determine whether curbside EVCS, already adopted in dense urban areas, could be adapted for Dublin’s land-use patterns and community needs.

5. Prepare for Funding and Incentive Opportunities
Because EVCS buildout is capital-intensive, the City should proactively prepare for state, federal, and local funding cycles by developing project concepts, gathering site data, and maintaining shovel-ready project lists.

6. Review LCFS Credits. As the City continues to accrue LCFS credits, it should evaluate and determine appropriate uses for the associated funds. When the City is prepared to monetize the credits, it should engage qualified brokers to facilitate and optimize the sale process.

7. Continue to Implement Building Reach Codes. Adopting building codes is one area where the City has direct influence on increasing EVCS throughout the City. By continuing to adopt CALGreen Tier 2 codes as mandatory, a built-in pathway for expanding EV infrastructure is created.

These actions will require a dedicated effort from the City to implement and may occur over many years. Not all these next steps can be implemented at once and must be prioritized to balance staff priorities. Table 29 summarizes the next steps, estimated staff effort, and other key considerations.

Table 29. City of Dublin EVCS Next Steps
Next Step Priority City Lead
Estimated
Staff Time
(hrs/
frequency)
Funding
Needs/
Source (if
available)
Implementation
Timeline
Risks or
Barriers
Success
Metrics
Expand EVCS
Deployment
at Key City
Sites
High Public Works
10 hours/week,
ongoing
Review
available
funding at
the time of
development
2-4 years, target
completion by
2030
Funding
availability,
electric
capacity
Meeting
installation
timelines
and
minimizing
EVCS
downtime
Issue RFP for
Third Party
EVCS Owner
Operators
High Public Works
80 hours, one
time to run
RFI/Q
None
Issue RFP in 1
year, to support
completion
before 2030
Inadequate
responses,
vendor
bankruptcy
or
consolidation
EVCS
uptime and
utilization,
customer
satisfaction
2011
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 66
Next Step Priority City Lead
Estimated
Staff Time
(hrs/
frequency)
Funding
Needs/
Source (if
available)
Implementation
Timeline
Risks or
Barriers
Success
Metrics
Engage
Private
Sector
Partners
Low
Community
Development/
Economic
Development
4 hours/
week,
ongoing
None
5+ years, target
projects in
process of 3
sites by 2030
Private
sector
interest and
funding
availability
EVCS ports
installed
Explore
Curbside
Charging
Feasibility
Medium Public Works
80 hours to
run RFP, one
time. 4-8
hours/week
for ongoing
project
management,
6-12 months
City funds, or
evaluate if
planning
grants are
available
Release RFP by
2028, complete
Study by 2029.

Managing
curbside
parking
Ports
installed,
EVCS
utilization
Prepare for
Funding and
Incentive
Opportunities
Medium Public Works
1-2 hours to
review per
source; effort
to apply
varies
None
Ongoing,
throughout
project
development
Changing
federal or
state
budgets,
competitive
applications
Funds
acquired
Review LCFS
Credits Low Public Works 40 hours/yr ongoing. None Ongoing, quarterly Fluctuating
credit prices
Credits
generated,
funds
acquired
Continue to
Implement
Building
Reach Codes
Low Public Works
20 hours/code
cycle
None Ongoing, every
18 months
Local
pushback to
requirements
EVCS
installed
2012
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 67

11. Conclusion
By implementing the strategies presented in this Plan, the City of Dublin can make significant strides toward its clean transportation and climate goals. A focus on strategic partnerships, diversified ownership models, and thoughtful site selection will ensure that EV infrastructure is accessible, reliable, and sustainable.
2013
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 68
References
Advanced Clean Cars Program. (n.d.). California Air Resources Board. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/drive-forward-light-duty-vehicle-program/advancedclean-cars Ava Community Energy. (n.d.). Medium- and heavy-duty vehicle electrification blueprint. https://avaenergy.org/medium-heavy-duty-blueprint/
Ava Community Energy. (n.d.). Savings and incentives for electric vehicles. https://avaenergy.org/go-electric/savings-incentives/
Bay Area Reach Codes. (n.d.). Reach codes for building electrification and EV readiness. https://bayareareachcodes.org/
California Air Resources Board. (n.d.). California greenhouse gas inventory data. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data
California Air Resources Board. (n.d.). Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Program overview. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/low-carbon-fuel-standard/about California Air Resources Board. (2025). Monthly LCFS credit transfer activity: December 2025. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/December%202025%20- %20Monthly%20LCFS%20Credit%20Transfer%20Activity.pdf
California Energy Commission. (n.d.). Zero-emission vehicle and infrastructure statistics. https://www.energy.ca.gov/files/zev-and-infrastructure-stats-data California Governor’s Office. (2020). Executive Order N-79-20. https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/9.23.20-EO-N-79-20-Climate.pdf City of Dublin. (n.d.). Community and economic profile. https://www.dublin.ca.gov/238/Community-and-Economic-Profile Drive Clean California. (n.d.). Electric car charging basics. https://driveclean.ca.gov/electric-car-charging
Electrek. (2023, February 23). Tesla Supercharger Magic Dock for non-Tesla electric cars spotted in the U.S.
https://electrek.co/2023/02/23/tesla-supercharger-magic-dock-for-non-tesla-electric-cars-spottedus/ Energy and Environmental Economics (E3). (2022). Air quality benefits of transportation electrification.
https://www.ethree.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/CPUC-Air-Quality-Report-FINAL.pdf 2014
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 69
Eurostat. (n.d.). Glossary: Carbon dioxide equivalent.

CO2 equivalent
EVCS. (n.d.). EVCS and the City of Fairfield open their first EV charging site. https://www.evcs.com/blog/evcs-and-the-city-of-fairfield-open-their-first-ev-charging-site FindLaw. (n.d.). California Civil Code § 1947.6.
https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-1947-6.html Fortune. (2024, March 7). EV charging stations might be a profitable business after all. https://fortune.com/2024/03/07/ev-charging-stations-profitable-business-after-all/ International Energy Agency. (n.d.). EV life-cycle assessment calculator. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/ev-life-cycle-assessment-calculator International Code Council. (2022). 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) errata and supplement.
https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/errata_central/2022-CA_Green_July24- Supp_COMPLETE.pdf
J.D. Power. (2025). E-Vision Intelligence Report: February 2025. https://www.jdpower.com/business/resources/e-vision-intelligence-report-february-2025 Legislative Counsel of California. (2015). Assembly Bill 1236.

AB1236
Legislative Counsel of California. (2021). Assembly Bill 970.

AB970
Neste. (n.d.). LCFS credit price market data.
https://www.neste.com/investors/market-data/lcfs-credit-price Oregon Public Utility Commission. (2017). Advice filing UAA 1720 / Adv 1081. https://edocs.puc.state.or.us/efdocs/UAA/adv1081uaa17201.pdf ScienceDirect. (2023). Environmental impacts associated with electric vehicle deployment. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969723003765 Stable Auto. (n.d.). Electric vehicle charger utilization by month. https://stable.auto/insights/electric-vehicle-charger-utilization-by-month The Autopian. (2023). This EV charging cable punishes thieves by turning them blue. https://www.theautopian.com/this-ev-charging-cable-punishes-thieves-by-turning-them-blue/ 2015
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 70
Vox. (2023). Electric cars and California air pollution: Health impacts explained. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/23583500/ev-electric-car-california-air-pollutionasthma-health American Chemical Society. (2020). Environmental Science & Technology Letters article on EV lifecycle emissions.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00424
2016
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 71
Appendices
2017
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 73
Appendix A – Suitability Analysis Results
2018
City of Dublin, CA
EV Charger Site Suitability Analysis
Default Scenario
2019
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 74
Appendix B – Compiled Conceptual Layouts
2020
Alamo Creek Park
7601 Shady Creek Rd, Dublin, CA 94568
N
STANDARD EV CHARGING STALL9'x18' TYPVAN ACCESSIBLE EV CHARGINGSTALL 12'x18' TYPACCESS AISLE, 5' WIDE TYPLEVEL 2 EV CHARGING STATIONCONCRETE EQUIPMENT PAD,METERED ELECTRICAL SERVICESWITCHBOARD AND DISTRIBUTION EVCS PRELIMINARY LAYOUT Dougherty Rd
Willow Creek Dr Project Location
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
Shady Creek Rd SUMMARY RECOMMEND SCOPE (4) LEVEL 2 CHARGE PORTS AMMENITIES PARK, RESTROOMS SITE TYPE / OWNERSHIP PARK ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $329,000 SUITABILITY SCORE 36 GRID CAPACITY 1.3 - 2.8 MW PARKING STALL COUNT STANDARD ADA 2 STANDARD 22 EXIST. EVCS - ADA EVCS - TOTAL COUNT 24
217 PROP.3123 LEGEND
UTILITY SERVICE CONDUITSPOINT OF SERVICE, ADDITIONALINFRASTRUCTURE NOT VISIBILE,REQUIRES UTILITY INPUTPROPOSED ADA PATH OF TRAVEL.SLOPE NOT VERIFIED 2021
Corporation Yard
5709 Scarlett Ct, Dublin, CA 94568
N

EVCS PRELIMINARY LAYOUT
Scarlett Ct
Project Location
DeMarcus Blvd
STANDARD EV CHARGING STALL9'x18' TYPVAN ACCESSIBLE EV CHARGINGSTALL 12'x18' TYPACCESS AISLE, 5' WIDE TYPLEVEL 2 EV CHARGING STATIONCONCRETE EQUIPMENT PAD,METERED ELECTRICAL SERVICESWITCHBOARD AND DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY RECOMMEND SCOPE (4) LEVEL 2 CHARGE PORTS AMMENITIES CORPORATION YARD & MAINTENANCE FACILITY SITE TYPE / OWNERSHIP CORPORATION YARD & MAINTENANCE FACILITY ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $238,000 SUITABILITY SCORE 36 GRID CAPACITY 7.6 MW PARKING STALL COUNT STANDARD ADA 2 STANDARD 38 EXIST. EVCS - ADA EVCS - TOTAL COUNT 40
233 PROP.3139 LEGEND
UTILITY SERVICE CONDUITSASSUMED NEW POINT OFSERVICE, TO BE ADDED AS PARTOF FUTURE FLEETELECTRIFICATION, REQUIRESUTILITY INPUTPROPOSED ADA PATH OF TRAVEL.SLOPE NOT VERIFIED EV

CHARGING
ONLY
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
2022
SIGNING AND STRIPING CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

DUBLIN
CIVIC
CENTERDublin Civic Center
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568
N
STANDARD EV CHARGING STALL 9'x18' TYPFUTURE DUAL PORT LEVEL 2 EV CHARGINGSTATIONEXISTING PROPOSED VAN /STANDARDACCESSIBLE EV CHARGING STALL 12'x18' TYPEXISTING PROPOSED ACCESS AISLE, 5' WIDETYPEXISTING PROPOSED DUAL PORT LEVEL 2 EVCHARGING STATIONEXISTING PROPOSED SINGLE PORT LEVEL 2 EVCHARGING STATION EVCS PRELIMINARY LAYOUT SUMMARY RECOMMEND SCOPE (25) LEVEL 2 CHARGE PORTS AMMENITIES CIVIC CENTER, RESTROOMS SITE TYPE / OWNERSHIP CIVIC CENTER ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $993,000 SUITABILITY SCORE 41 GRID CAPACITY 1.5 MW PARKING STALL COUNT STANDARD ADA 10 STANDARD 202 EXIST. EVCS 13 ADA EVCS 2 TOTAL COUNT 227 10 190 PROP. 25 2227 LEGEND Project Location
DUBLIN BLVD I-580

SIERRA CT

CONCRETE EQUIPMENT PAD, METEREDELECTRICAL SERVICE SWITCHBOARDAND DISTRIBUTIONUTILITY SERVICE CONDUITSPOINT OF SERVICE, ADDITIONALINFRASTRUCTURE NOT VISIBILE,REQUIRES UTILITY INPUTPROPOSED ADA PATH 2023

DON BIDDLE COMMUNITY PARK
6100 Horizon Pkwy, Dublin, CA 94568
N
STANDARD EV CHARGING STALL 9'x18' TYPFUTURE DUAL PORT LEVEL 2 EV CHARGINGSTATION. FUTURE SINGLE PORT LEVEL 2 EV CHARGING STATION.EXISTING SINGLE PORT LEVEL 2 EVCHARGING STATIONEXISTING DUAL PORT LEVEL 2 EV CHARGINGSTATIONEXISTING VAN /STANDARD ACCESSIBLE EVCHARGING STALL 12'x18' TYPEXISTING ACCESS AISLE, 5' WIDE TYP Project Location

EVCS PRELIMINARY LAYOUT
SUMMARY RECOMMEND SCOPE (8) LEVEL 2 PORTS AMMENITIES PARK, RESTROOMS SITE TYPE / OWNERSHIP PARK ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $273,000 SUITABILITY SCORE 40 GRID CAPACITY 3.3 MW PARKING STALL COUNT STANDARD ADA 9 STANDARD 207 EXIST. EVCS 12 ADA EVCS 2 TOTAL COUNT 230 9203 PROP. 162230 LEGEND
EXISTING CONCRETE EQUIPMENT PAD,METERED ELECTRICAL SERVICESWITCHBOARD AND DISTRIBUTIONUTILITY SERVICE CONDUITSPOINT OF SERVICE, ADDITIONALINFRASTRUCTURE NOT VISIBILE,REQUIRES UTILITY INPUTPROPOSED ADA PATH OF TRAVEL.SLOPE NOT VERIFIED EV

CHARGING
ONLY

HORIZON PKWY

SCARLETT DR EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY 2024
Dublin Library
200 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568
N
STANDARD EV CHARGING STALL9'x18' TYPVAN ACCESSIBLE EV CHARGINGSTALL 12'x18' TYPSTANDARD ACCESSIBLE EVCHARGING STALL 9'x18' TYPACCESS AISLE, 5' WIDE TYPSINGLE PORT LEVEL 2 EVCHARGING STATIONDUAL PORT LEVEL 2 EV CHARGINGSTATION

EVCS PRELIMINARY LAYOUT
SUMMARY RECOMMEND SCOPE (22) LEVEL 2 CHARGE PORTS AMMENITIES LIBRARY, RESTROOMS SITE TYPE / OWNERSHIP LIBRARY ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $2,195,000 SUITABILITY SCORE 41 BUILDING SPARE ELECTRICAL CAPACITY 648 kW PARKING STALL COUNT STANDARD ADA 5 STANDARD 189 EXIST. EVCS 3 ADA EVCS - TOTAL COUNT 197 5165 PROP. 232195 LEGEND
EXISTING SINGLE PORT LEVEL 2EV CHARGING STATIONCONCRETE EQUIPMENT PAD,METERED ELECTRICAL SERVICESWITCHBOARD AND DISTRIBUTIONUTILITY SERVICE CONDUITSEXISTING POINT OF SERVICE,ASSUMED TO BE CONNECTED TOEXISTING FACILITYINFRASTRCTUREPROPOSED ADA PATH OF TRAVEL.SLOPE NOT VERIFIED Project Location DUBLIN BLVD I-580

SIERRA CT
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
2025
Dublin Sports Ground
6700 Dublin Blvd, Dublin, CA 94568
N
STANDARD EV CHARGING STALL 9'x18'TYPVAN ACCESSIBLE EV CHARGINGSTALL 12'x18' TYPACCESS AISLE, 5' WIDE TYPFUTURE DUAL PORT LEVEL 2 EVCHARGING STATION. FUTURE DCFC EV CHARGING STATIONEXISTING SINGLE PORT LEVEL 2 EVCHARGING STATIONEXISTING DUAL PORT LEVEL 2 EVCHARGING STATION

EVCS PRELIMINARY LAYOUT
SUMMARY RECOMMEND SCOPE (20) LEVEL 2 AND (9) LEVEL 3 CHARGE PORTS AMMENITIES PARK, RESTROOMS SITE TYPE / OWNERSHIP PARK ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $2,309,000 SUITABILITY SCORE 43 GRID CAPACITY 1.6 MW PARKING STALL COUNT STANDARD ADA 12 STANDARD 145 EXIST. EVCS 7 ADA EVCS 2 TOTAL COUNT 166 12 116 PROP. 36 2166 LEGEND
EXISTING DCFC CHARGINGSTATIONEXISTING CONCRETE EQUIPMENTPAD, METERED ELECTRICALSERVICE SWITCHBOARD ANDDISTRIBUTIONUTILITY SERVICE CONDUITSPOINT OF SERVICE, ADDITIONALINFRASTRUCTURE NOT VISIBILE,REQUIRES UTILITY INPUTPROPOSED ADA PATH OF TRAVEL.SLOPE NOT VERIFIED EV

CHARGING
ONLY
EV

CHARGING
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
EV
ONLY

CHARGING
EV
ONLY

CHARGING
ONLY
EV

CHARGING EV

ONLY CHARGING EV

ONLY CHARGING
ONLY
EV

CHARGING
EV
ONLY

CHARGING EV

ONLY CHARGING
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
EV

ONLY CHARGING
ONLY
EV

CHARGING
EV
ONLY

CHARGING EV

ONLY CHARGING
ONLY
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
Project Location
EV
ONLY

CHARGING
DUBLIN BLVD I-580

SIERRA CT
2026
Emerald Glen Park - North Lot
4201 Central Pkwy, Dublin, CA 94568
N

EVCS PRELIMINARY LAYOUT
Tassajara Rd Project Location Central Pkwy EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY Gleason Dr STANDARD EV CHARGING STALL9'x18' TYPVAN ACCESSIBLE EV CHARGINGSTALL 12'x18' TYPSTANDARD ACCESSIBLE EVCHARGING STALL 9'x18' TYPACCESS AISLE, 5' WIDE TYPSINGLE PORT LEVEL 2 EVCHARGING STATIONDUAL PORT LEVEL 2 EV CHARGINGSTATION SUMMARY RECOMMEND SCOPE (9) LEVEL 2 AND (4) DCFC CHARGE PORTS AMMENITIES PARK, RESTROOMS SITE TYPE / OWNERSHIP PARK ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $1,642,000 SUITABILITY SCORE 37 GRID CAPACITY 2.9 MW PARKING STALL COUNT STANDARD ADA 6 STANDARD 125 EXIST. EVCS - ADA EVCS - TOTAL COUNT 131 6111 PROP. 11
2130 LEGEND
DCFC EV CHARGING STATIONCONCRETE EQUIPMENT PAD,METERED ELECTRICAL SERVICESWITCHBOARD AND DISTRIBUTIONUTILITY SERVICE CONDUITSEXISTING POINT OF SERVICE,ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURENOT VISIBILE, REQUIRES UTILITYINPUTPROPOSED ADA PATH OF TRAVEL.SLOPE NOT VERIFIED 2027
Emerald Glen Park - South Lot
4210 Central Pkwy, Dublin, CA 94568
N
STANDARD EV CHARGING STALL9'x18' TYPVAN ACCESSIBLE EV CHARGINGSTALL 12'x18' TYPACCESS AISLE, 5' WIDE TYPSINGLE PORT LEVEL 2 EVCHARGING STATIONDUAL PORT LEVEL 2 EV CHARGINGSTATIONDCFC EV CHARGING STATIONEXISTING CONCRETE PAD,SWITCHBOARD AND DISTRIBUTION

EVCS PRELIMINARY LAYOUT
Project Location
SUMMARY RECOMMEND SCOPE (15) LEVEL 2 AND (8) LEVEL 3 CHARGE PORTS AMMENITIES PARK, WATER PARK, RESTROOMS SITE TYPE / OWNERSHIP PARK ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $3,278,000 SUITABILITY SCORE 37 GRID CAPACITY 2.9 MW PARKING STALL COUNT STANDARD ADA 19 STANDARD 326 EXIST. EVCS 6 ADA EVCS - TOTAL COUNT 351 19 301 PROP. 27 2349 LEGEND
EXISTING SINGLE PORT LEVEL 2EV CHARGING STATIONEXISTING DUAL PORT LEVEL 2 EVCHARGING STATIONCONCRETE EQUIPMENT PAD,METERED ELECTRICAL SERVICESWITCHBOARD AND DISTRIBUTIONUTILITY SERVICE CONDUITSPOINT OF SERVICE, ADDITIONALINFRASTRUCTURE NOT VISIBILE,REQUIRES UTILITY INPUTPROPOSED ADA PATH OF TRAVEL.SLOPE NOT VERIFIED Central Parkway
Glynnis Rose Dr
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
2028
Fallon Sports Park - Lower Lot
4605 Lockhart St, Dublin, CA 94568
N

EVCS PRELIMINARY LAYOUT
Central Pkwy
Project Location
Gleason Dr
Lockhart St
Fallon Rd Palermo Way
STANDARD EV CHARGING STALL9'x18' TYPVAN ACCESSIBLE EV CHARGINGSTALL 12'x18' TYPSTANDARD ACCESSIBLE EVCHARGING STALL 9'x18' TYPACCESS AISLE, 5' WIDE TYPSINGLE PORT LEVEL 2 EVCHARGING STATIONDUAL PORT LEVEL 2 EV CHARGINGSTATIONDCFC EV CHARGING STATION PARKING STALL COUNT STANDARD ADA 8 STANDARD 143 EXIST. EVCS 2 ADA EVCS 1 TOTAL COUNT 154 8134 PROP.53153 LEGEND
EXISTING SINGLE PORT LEVEL 2 EVCHARGING STATIONEXISTING DUAL PORT LEVEL 2 EVCHARGING STATIONCONCRETE EQUIPMENT PAD,METERED ELECTRICAL SERVICESWITCHBOARD AND DISTRIBUTIONUTILITY SERVICE CONDUITSEXISTING POINT OF SERVICE,ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE NOTVISIBILE, REQUIRES UTILITY INPUTPROPOSED ADA PATH OF TRAVEL.SLOPE NOT VERIFIED SUMMARY RECOMMEND SCOPE (2) LEVEL 2 and (3) DCFC CHARGE PORTS AMMENITIES PARK, RESTROOMS SITE TYPE / OWNERSHIP PARK ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $1,234,000 SUITABILITY SCORE 59 GRID CAPACITY 2.2 MW

EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY

EV CHARGING ONLY
2029
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
EV

CHARGING

ONLY EV

CHARGING

ONLY EV

CHARGING
ONLY
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
STANDARD EV CHARGING STALL9'x18' TYPVAN ACCESSIBLE EV CHARGINGSTALL 12'x18' TYPSTANDARD ACCESSIBLE EVCHARGING STALL 9'x18' TYPACCESS AISLE, 5' WIDE TYPSINGLE PORT LEVEL 2 EVCHARGING STATIONDUAL PORT LEVEL 2 EV CHARGINGSTATION SUMMARY RECOMMEND SCOPE (15) LEVEL 2 and (8) DCFC CHARGE PORTS AMMENITIES PARK, RESTROOMS SITE TYPE / OWNERSHIP PARK ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $5,045,000 SUITABILITY SCORE 59 GRID CAPACITY 2.2 MW PARKING STALL COUNT STANDARD ADA 7 STANDARD 218 EXIST. EVCS - ADA EVCS - TOTAL COUNT 225 7193 PROP. 203223 LEGEND
DCFC EV CHARGING STATIONCONCRETE EQUIPMENT PAD,METERED ELECTRICAL SERVICESWITCHBOARD AND DISTRIBUTIONUTILITY SERVICE CONDUITSEXISTING POINT OF SERVICE,ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURENOT VISIBILE, REQUIRES UTILITYINPUTPROPOSED ADA PATH OF TRAVEL.SLOPE NOT VERIFIED Fallon Sports Park - Upper Lot 4605 Lockhart St, Dublin, CA 94568
N

EVCS PRELIMINARY LAYOUT
Central Pkwy
Project Location
Gleason Dr
Lockhart St
Fallon Rd Palermo Way
2030
Fire Station 16
7494 Donohue Dr, Dublin, CA 94568
N

EVCS PRELIMINARY LAYOUT
Steward Dr
Project Location
Amador Valley Blvd
Donohue Dr
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
STANDARD EV CHARGING STALL9'x18' TYPVAN ACCESSIBLE EV CHARGINGSTALL 12'x18' TYPACCESS AISLE, 5' WIDE TYPDUAL PORT LEVEL 2 EV CHARGINGSTATION SUMMARY RECOMMEND SCOPE (4) LEVEL 2 CHARGE PORTS AMMENITIES FIRE STATION SITE TYPE / OWNERSHIP FIRE STATION ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $309,000 SUITABILITY SCORE 36 GRID CAPACITY 2 MW PARKING STALL COUNT STANDARD ADA 1 STANDARD 19 EXIST. EVCS - ADA EVCS - TOTAL COUNT 20
114 PROP.
3119 LEGEND
CONCRETE EQUIPMENT PAD,METERED ELECTRICAL SERVICESWITCHBOARD AND DISTRIBUTIONUTILITY SERVICE CONDUITSEXISTING POINT OF SERVICE,ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURENOT VISIBILE, REQUIRES UTILITYINPUTPROPOSED ADA PATH OF TRAVEL.SLOPE NOT VERIFIED 2031
Fire Station 17
6200 Madigan Rd, Dublin, CA 94568
N

EVCS PRELIMINARY LAYOUT
Broder Boulevard
Project Location
Madigan Road
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
STANDARD EV CHARGING STALL9'x18' TYPVAN ACCESSIBLE EV CHARGINGSTALL 12'x18' TYPACCESS AISLE, 5' WIDE TYPSINGLE PORT LEVEL 2 EVCHARGING STATIONDUAL PORT LEVEL 2 EV CHARGINGSTATION SUMMARY RECOMMEND SCOPE (4) LEVEL 2 CHARGE PORTS AMMENITIES FIRE STATION SITE TYPE / OWNERSHIP FIRE STATION ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $562,000 SUITABILITY SCORE 36 GRID CAPACITY 3.5 MW PARKING STALL COUNT STANDARD ADA 1 STANDARD 16 EXIST. EVCS - ADA EVCS - TOTAL COUNT 17
112 PROP.3117 LEGEND
CONCRETE EQUIPMENT PAD,METERED ELECTRICAL SERVICESWITCHBOARD AND DISTRIBUTIONUTILITY SERVICE CONDUITSEXISTING POINT OF SERVICE,ASSUMED TO BE CONNECTED TOEXISTING FACILITYINFRASTRCTUREPROPOSED ADA PATH OF TRAVEL.SLOPE NOT VERIFIED 2032
Fire Station 18
4800 Fallon Rd, Dublin, CA 94568
N

EVCS PRELIMINARY LAYOUT
Fallon Road Project Location
Gleason Drive
Positano Parkway
Bent Tree Drive
Lockhart Street
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
STANDARD EV CHARGING STALL9'x18' TYPVAN ACCESSIBLE EV CHARGINGSTALL 12'x18' TYPACCESS AISLE, 5' WIDE TYPSINGLE PORT LEVEL 2 EVCHARGING STATIONDUAL PORT LEVEL 2 EV CHARGINGSTATION SUMMARY RECOMMEND SCOPE (4) LEVEL 2 CHARGE PORTS AMMENITIES FIRE STATION SITE TYPE / OWNERSHIP FIRE STATION ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $490,000 SUITABILITY SCORE 20 GRID CAPACITY 1.4 MW PARKING STALL COUNT STANDARD ADA 1 STANDARD 9 EXIST. EVCS - ADA EVCS - TOTAL COUNT 10
15 PROP.
3123 LEGEND
CONCRETE EQUIPMENT PAD,METERED ELECTRICAL SERVICESWITCHBOARD AND DISTRIBUTIONUTILITY SERVICE CONDUITSEXISTING POINT OF SERVICE,ASSUMED TO BE CONNECTED TOEXISTING FACILTY ELECTRICALINFRASTRUCTUREPROPOSED ADA PATH OF TRAVEL.SLOPE NOT VERIFIED 2033
Dublin Senior Center
7600 Amador Valley Blvd, Dublin, CA 94568
N

EVCS PRELIMINARY LAYOUT
Amador Valley Blvd
Amador Plaza Rd Project Location
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
Starward Dr
STANDARD EV CHARGING STALL9'x18' TYPVAN ACCESSIBLE EV CHARGINGSTALL 12'x18' TYPSTANDARD ACCESSIBLE EVCHARGING STALL 9'x18' TYPACCESS AISLE, 5' WIDE TYPDUAL PORT LEVE L2 EV CHARGINGSTATION SUMMARY RECOMMEND SCOPE (12) LEVEL 2 CHARGE PORTS AMMENITIES SENIOR CENTER, RETAIL, RESTAURANTS, RESTROOMS SITE TYPE / OWNERSHIP SENIOR CENTER ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $690,000 SUITABILITY SCORE 63 BUILDING SPARE ELECTRICAL CAPACITY 266 kW PARKING STALL COUNT STANDARD ADA 4 STANDARD 58 EXIST. EVCS - ADA EVCS - TOTAL COUNT 62
445 PROP. 10261 LEGEND
CONCRETE EQUIPMENT PAD,METERED ELECTRICAL SERVICESWITCHBOARD AND DISTRIBUTIONUTILITY SERVICE CONDUITSEXISTING POINT OF SERVICE,ASSUMED TO BE CONNECTED TOEXISTING FACILITYINFRASTRCTUREPROPOSED ADA PATH OF TRAVEL.SLOPE NOT VERIFIED 2034
Shannon Park
11600 Shannon Ave, Dublin, CA 94568
N

EVCS PRELIMINARY LAYOUT
Peppertree Rd Shannon Ave Project Location
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
San Ramon Rd
STANDARD EV CHARGING STALL9'x18' TYPVAN ACCESSIBLE EV CHARGINGSTALL 12'x18' TYPACCESS AISLE, 5' WIDE TYPDCFC EV CHARGING STATIONEXISTING DUAL PORT LEVEL 2 EVCHARGING STATION SUMMARY RECOMMEND SCOPE (4) DCFC CHARGE PORTS AMMENITIES PARK, RESTROOMS SITE TYPE / OWNERSHIP PARK ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $1,776,000 SUITABILITY SCORE 59 GRID CAPACITY 0.7 - 2.3 MW PARKING STALL COUNT STANDARD ADA 5 STANDARD 99 EXIST. EVCS 1 ADA EVCS 1 TOTAL COUNT 106
594 PROP.4223 LEGEND
CONCRETE EQUIPMENT PAD,METERED ELECTRICAL SERVICESWITCHBOARD AND DISTRIBUTIONUTILITY SERVICE CONDUITSEXISTING POINT OF SERVICE,ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURENOT VISIBILE, REQUIRES UTILITYINPUTPROPOSED ADA PATH OF TRAVEL.SLOPE NOT VERIFIED 2035

WALLIS RANCH COMMUNITY PARK
6501 Rutherford Dr, Dublin, CA 94568
N
STANDARD EV CHARGING STALL 9'x18' TYPFUTURE SINGLE PORT LEVEL 2 EVCHARGING STATIONEXISTING SINGLE PORT LEVEL 2 EVCHARGING STATIONEXISTING VAN /STANDARD ACCESSIBLE EVCHARGING STALL 12'x18' TYPEXISTING ACCESS AISLE, 5' WIDE TYP

EVCS PRELIMINARY LAYOUT
SUMMARY RECOMMEND SCOPE (2) LEVEL PORTS AMMENITIES PARK, RESTROOMS SITE TYPE / OWNERSHIP PARK ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $62,000 SUITABILITY SCORE 16 GRID CAPACITY 4.9 MW PARKING STALL COUNT STANDARD ADA 1 STANDARD 24 EXIST. EVCS 0 ADA EVCS 2 TOTAL COUNT 27
122 PROP.2227 LEGEND
Project Location

RUTHERFORD DR SCARLETT DR EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY 2036
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 74
Appendix C – Financial Analysis for Concept Layouts
Table 30. Dublin Library EVCS Project Cash Flow Analysis Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Upfront Capital Cost -$2,195,000
LCFS Credits $16,655 $17,487 $18,362 $19,280 $20,244 $21,256 $22,319 $23,435 $24,606 $25,837 $27,128 Maintenance Cost -$6,120 -$6,304 -$6,493 -$6,687 -$6,888 -$7,095 -$7,308 -$7,527 -$7,753 -$7,985 -$8,225 Networking Fees -$5,940 -$6,118 -$6,302 -$6,491 -$6,686 -$6,886 -$7,093 -$7,305 -$7,525 -$7,750 -$7,983 Charger Utilization 10% 11% 11% 12% 12% 13% 13% 14% 15% 16% 16% kW Delivered Per Year $237,922 $249,818 $262,309 $275,424 $289,195 $303,655 $318,838 $334,780 $351,519 $369,094 $387,549 Charger Use Cost /
kWh
$0.35 $0.36 $0.37 $0.38 $0.39 $0.41 $0.42 $0.43 $0.44 $0.46 $0.47 Energy Cost to City /
kWh
$0.37 $0.38 $0.39 $0.40 $0.42 $0.43 $0.44 $0.46 $0.47 $0.48 $0.50 Annual Charger Profit -$4,758 -$5,146 -$5,566 -$6,019 -$6,510 -$7,040 -$7,614 -$8,235 -$8,906 -$9,632 -$10,417 Annual Cashflow -$2,195,164 -$81 $1 $82 $160 $235 $304 $368 $423 $469 $504 NPV (using 5%
discount rate) -$2,193,466
Cumulative Cashflow -$2,195,164 -$2,195,245 -$2,195,243 -$2,195,161 -$2,195,001 -$2,194,766 -$2,194,462 -$2,194,095 -$2,193,671 -$2,193,202 -$2,192,698 Table 31. Sensitivity Analysis For Dublin Library EVCS, 10-Yr. Cash Flow Price to Charge
EV ($/kWh)
EVCS Utilization Rate
3% 5% 7% 9% 11% 13% 15% 17% 20%
$0.25 $(2,422,197) $(2,470,687) $(2,519,178) $(2,567,668) $(2,616,158) $(2,664,648) $(2,713,138) $(2,752,729) $(2,786,812) $0.28 $(2,386,268) $(2,410,805) $(2,435,342) $(2,459,880) $(2,484,417) $(2,508,954) $(2,533,491) $(2,553,095) $(2,569,007) $0.31 $(2,350,339) $(2,350,923) $(2,351,507) $(2,352,092) $(2,352,676) $(2,353,260) $(2,353,845) $(2,353,461) $(2,351,202) $0.34 $(2,314,409) $(2,291,041) $(2,267,672) $(2,244,304) $(2,220,935) $(2,197,567) $(2,174,198) $(2,153,827) $(2,133,396) $0.37 $(2,278,480) $(2,231,158) $(2,183,837) $(2,136,516) $(2,089,194) $(2,041,873) $(1,994,551) $(1,954,192) $(1,915,591) $0.40 $(2,242,551) $(2,171,276) $(2,100,002) $(2,028,728) $(1,957,453) $(1,886,179) $(1,814,905) $(1,754,558) $(1,697,786) $0.43 $(2,206,621) $(2,111,394) $(2,016,167) $(1,920,940) $(1,825,712) $(1,730,485) $(1,635,258) $(1,554,924) $(1,479,980) $0.46 $(2,170,692) $(2,051,512) $(1,932,332) $(1,813,152) $(1,693,972) $(1,574,791) $(1,455,611) $(1,355,290) $(1,262,175) $0.49 $(2,134,763) $(1,991,630) $(1,848,497) $(1,705,364) $(1,562,231) $(1,419,098) $(1,275,965) $(1,155,656) $(1,044,370) $0.52 $(2,098,833) $(1,931,747) $(1,764,661) $(1,597,576) $(1,430,490) $(1,263,404) $(1,096,318) $(956,021) $(826,564) $0.55 $(2,062,904) $(1,871,865) $(1,680,826) $(1,489,788) $(1,298,749) $(1,107,710) $(916,671) $(756,387) $(608,759) 2037
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 75
Table 32. Corp Yard EVCS Project Cash Flow Analysis
Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Upfront Capital Cost -$238,000
LCFS Credits $1,521 $1,597 $1,677 $1,760 $1,848 $1,941 $2,038 $2,140 $2,247 $2,359 $2,477 Maintenance Cost -$1,020 -$1,051 -$1,082 -$1,115 -$1,148 -$1,182 -$1,218 -$1,254 -$1,292 -$1,331 -$1,371 Networking Fees -$1,080 -$1,112 -$1,146 -$1,180 -$1,216 -$1,252 -$1,290 -$1,328 -$1,368 -$1,409 -$1,451 Charger Utilization 10% 11% 11% 12% 12% 13% 13% 14% 15% 16% 16% kW Delivered Per Year $21,725 $22,811 $23,952 $25,149 $26,407 $27,727 $29,113 $30,569 $32,097 $33,702 $35,387 Charger Use Cost / kWh $0.35 $0.36 $0.37 $0.38 $0.39 $0.41 $0.42 $0.43 $0.44 $0.46 $0.47 Energy Cost to City / kWh $0.24 $0.25 $0.26 $0.27 $0.27 $0.28 $0.29 $0.30 $0.31 $0.32 $0.33 Annual Charger Profit $2,304 $2,492 $2,695 $2,915 $3,152 $3,409 $3,687 $3,988 $4,313 $4,664 $5,044 Annual Cashflow -$237,422 $745 $927 $1,128 $1,347 $1,586 $1,848 $2,135 $2,447 $2,787 $3,158 NPV (using 5% discount rate) -$224,258
Cumulative Cashflow -$237,422 -$236,677 -$235,749 -$234,622 -$233,275 -$231,689 -$229,840 -$227,706 -$225,259 -$222,472 -$219,313 Table 33. Sensitivity Analysis For Corp Yard EVCS, 10-Yr. Cash Flow Price to Charge
EV ($/kWh)
EVCS Utilization Rate
3% 5% 7% 9% 11% 13% 15% 17% 20%
$0.25 $(272,438) $(267,675) $(262,911) $(258,148) $(253,384) $(248,621) $(243,857) $(239,803) $(235,943) $0.28 $(269,157) $(262,207) $(255,256) $(248,306) $(241,355) $(234,404) $(227,454) $(221,574) $(216,055) $0.31 $(265,877) $(256,739) $(247,601) $(238,463) $(229,326) $(220,188) $(211,050) $(203,345) $(196,167) $0.34 $(262,596) $(251,271) $(239,946) $(228,621) $(217,296) $(205,971) $(194,646) $(185,117) $(176,279) $0.37 $(259,315) $(245,803) $(232,291) $(218,779) $(205,267) $(191,755) $(178,243) $(166,888) $(156,391) $0.40 $(256,034) $(240,335) $(224,636) $(208,937) $(193,238) $(177,538) $(161,839) $(148,659) $(136,503) $0.43 $(252,754) $(234,867) $(216,981) $(199,095) $(181,208) $(163,322) $(145,435) $(130,430) $(116,615) $0.46 $(249,473) $(229,399) $(209,326) $(189,252) $(169,179) $(149,105) $(129,032) $(112,202) $(96,727) $0.49 $(246,192) $(223,932) $(201,671) $(179,410) $(157,149) $(134,889) $(112,628) $(93,973) $(76,839) $0.52 $(242,912) $(218,464) $(194,016) $(169,568) $(145,120) $(120,672) $(96,224) $(75,744) $(56,951) $0.55 $(239,631) $(212,996) $(186,361) $(159,726) $(133,091) $(106,456) $(79,821) $(57,515) $(37,063) 2038
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 76
Table 34. Senior Center EVCS Project Cash Flow Analysis Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Upfront Capital Cost -$690,000
LCFS Credits $4,562 $4,790 $5,030 $5,281 $5,545 $5,823 $6,114 $6,419 $6,740 $7,077 $7,431 Maintenance Cost -$3,060 -$3,152 -$3,246 -$3,344 -$3,444 -$3,547 -$3,654 -$3,763 -$3,876 -$3,993 -$4,112 Networking Fees -$3,240 -$3,337 -$3,437 -$3,540 -$3,647 -$3,756 -$3,869 -$3,985 -$4,104 -$4,227 -$4,354 Charger Utilization 10% 11% 11% 12% 12% 13% 13% 14% 15% 16% 16% kW Delivered Per Year $65,174 $68,433 $71,855 $75,448 $79,220 $83,181 $87,340 $91,707 $96,292 $101,107 $106,162 Charger Use Cost / kWh $0.35 $0.36 $0.37 $0.38 $0.39 $0.41 $0.42 $0.43 $0.44 $0.46 $0.47 Energy Cost to City / kWh $0.35 $0.36 $0.37 $0.38 $0.39 $0.41 $0.42 $0.43 $0.44 $0.46 $0.47 Annual Charger Profit $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Annual Cashflow -$691,738 -$1,699 -$1,654 -$1,603 -$1,545 -$1,481 -$1,409 -$1,329 -$1,240 -$1,143 -$1,035 NPV (using 5% discount rate) -$702,879
Cumulative Cashflow -$691,738 -$693,436 -$695,090 -$696,693 -$698,238 -$699,719 -$701,128 -$702,457 -$703,697 -$704,839 -$705,875 Table 35. Sensitivity Analysis For Senior Center EVCS, 10-Yr. Cash Flow Price to
Charge EV
($/kWh)
EVCS Utilization Rate
3% 5% 7% 9% 11% 13% 15% 17% 20%
$0.25 $(784,052) $(792,961) $(801,870) $(810,778) $(819,687) $(828,596) $(837,504) $(844,700) $(850,717) $0.28 $(774,210) $(776,557) $(778,904) $(781,252) $(783,599) $(785,946) $(788,293) $(790,013) $(791,054) $0.31 $(764,368) $(760,154) $(755,939) $(751,725) $(747,511) $(743,297) $(739,082) $(735,327) $(731,390) $0.34 $(754,526) $(743,750) $(732,974) $(722,198) $(711,423) $(700,647) $(689,871) $(680,641) $(671,726) $0.37 $(744,683) $(727,346) $(710,009) $(692,672) $(675,335) $(657,997) $(640,660) $(625,955) $(612,062) $0.40 $(734,841) $(710,942) $(687,044) $(663,145) $(639,247) $(615,348) $(591,449) $(571,268) $(552,398) $0.43 $(724,999) $(694,539) $(664,079) $(633,619) $(603,158) $(572,698) $(542,238) $(516,582) $(492,734) $0.46 $(715,157) $(678,135) $(641,114) $(604,092) $(567,070) $(530,049) $(493,027) $(461,896) $(433,070) $0.49 $(705,315) $(661,731) $(618,148) $(574,565) $(530,982) $(487,399) $(443,816) $(407,210) $(373,406) $0.52 $(695,472) $(645,328) $(595,183) $(545,039) $(494,894) $(444,750) $(394,605) $(352,523) $(313,742) $0.55 $(685,630) $(628,924) $(572,218) $(515,512) $(458,806) $(402,100) $(345,394) $(297,837) $(254,079) 2039
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 77
Table 36. Shannon Park EVCS Project Cash Flow Analysis
Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Upfront Capital Cost
-$1,776,000
LCFS Credits $36,792 $38,632 $40,563 $42,591 $44,721 $46,957 $49,305 $51,770 $54,359 $57,076 $59,930 Maintenance Cost -$2,000 -$2,060 -$2,122 -$2,185 -$2,251 -$2,319 -$2,388 -$2,460 -$2,534 -$2,610 -$2,688 Networking Fees -$1,080 -$1,112 -$1,146 -$1,180 -$1,216 -$1,252 -$1,290 -$1,328 -$1,368 -$1,409 -$1,451 Charger Utilization 10% 11% 11% 12% 12% 13% 13% 14% 15% 16% 16% kW Delivered Per Year $525,600 $551,880 $579,474 $608,448 $638,870 $670,814 $704,354 $739,572 $776,551 $815,378 $856,147 Charger Use Cost / kWh $0.50 $0.52 $0.53 $0.55 $0.56 $0.58 $0.60 $0.61 $0.63 $0.65 $0.67 Energy Cost to City / kWh $0.25 $0.26 $0.26 $0.27 $0.28 $0.29 $0.30 $0.31 $0.32 $0.32 $0.33 Annual Charger Profit $131,999 $142,757 $154,391 $166,974 $180,583 $195,300 $211,217 $228,431 $247,048 $267,183 $288,958 Annual Cashflow -$1,624,050 $164,042 $177,088 $191,163 $206,349 $222,734 $240,413 $259,489 $280,074 $302,286 $326,256 NPV (using 5% discount rate) $150,749
Cumulative Cashflow -$1,624,050 -$1,460,008 -$1,282,919 -$1,091,756 -$885,407 -$662,673 -$422,260 -$162,770 $117,303 $419,589 $745,845 Table 37. Shannon Park For Civic Center EVCS, 10-Yr. Cash Flow Price to Charge
EV ($/kWh)
EVCS Utilization Rate
3% 5% 7% 9% 11% 13% 15% 17% 20%
$0.25 $(1,831,869) $(1,725,321) $(1,618,772) $(1,512,224) $(1,405,675) $(1,299,127) $(1,192,579) $(1,101,744) $(1,014,944) $0.28 $(1,752,496) $(1,593,033) $(1,433,569) $(1,274,106) $(1,114,642) $(955,179) $(795,716) $(660,726) $(533,784) $0.31 $(1,673,124) $(1,460,745) $(1,248,367) $(1,035,988) $(823,610) $(611,231) $(398,853) $(219,708) $(52,623) $0.34 $(1,593,751) $(1,328,457) $(1,063,164) $(797,870) $(532,577) $(267,283) $(1,989) $221,311 $428,537 $0.37 $(1,514,378) $(1,196,170) $(877,961) $(559,752) $(241,544) $76,665 $394,874 $662,329 $909,698 $0.40 $(1,435,006) $(1,063,882) $(692,758) $(321,635) $49,489 $420,613 $791,737 $1,103,347 $1,390,858 $0.43 $(1,355,633) $(931,594) $(507,556) $(83,517) $340,522 $764,561 $1,188,600 $1,544,365 $1,872,019 $0.46 $(1,276,261) $(799,307) $(322,353) $154,601 $631,555 $1,108,509 $1,585,463 $1,985,383 $2,353,179 $0.49 $(1,196,888) $(667,019) $(137,150) $392,719 $922,588 $1,452,457 $1,982,326 $2,426,401 $2,834,340 $0.52 $(1,117,515) $(534,731) $48,053 $630,837 $1,213,621 $1,796,405 $2,379,189 $2,867,419 $3,315,500 $0.55 $(1,038,143) $(402,444) $233,255 $868,955 $1,504,654 $2,140,353 $2,776,052 $3,308,437 $3,796,661 2040
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 78
Table 38. Fire Station 16 EVCS Project Cash Flow Analysis Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Upfront Capital Cost
-$309,000
LCFS Credits $1,521 $1,597 $1,677 $1,760 $1,848 $1,941 $2,038 $2,140 $2,247 $2,359 $2,477 Maintenance Cost -$1,020 -$1,051 -$1,082 -$1,115 -$1,148 -$1,182 -$1,218 -$1,254 -$1,292 -$1,331 -$1,371 Networking Fees -$1,080 -$1,112 -$1,146 -$1,180 -$1,216 -$1,252 -$1,290 -$1,328 -$1,368 -$1,409 -$1,451 Charger Utilization 10% 11% 11% 12% 12% 13% 13% 14% 15% 16% 16% kW Delivered Per Year $21,725 $22,811 $23,952 $25,149 $26,407 $27,727 $29,113 $30,569 $32,097 $33,702 $35,387 Charger Use Cost / kWh $0.35 $0.36 $0.37 $0.38 $0.39 $0.41 $0.42 $0.43 $0.44 $0.46 $0.47 Energy Cost to City / kWh $0.38 $0.39 $0.40 $0.42 $0.43 $0.44 $0.45 $0.47 $0.48 $0.50 $0.51 Annual Charger Profit -$652 -$705 -$762 -$824 -$892 -$964 -$1,043 -$1,128 -$1,220 -$1,319 -$1,427 Annual Cashflow -$310,231 -$1,271 -$1,314 -$1,359 -$1,407 -$1,458 -$1,512 -$1,571 -$1,633 -$1,700 -$1,772 NPV (using 5% discount rate) -$321,640
Cumulative Cashflow -$310,231 -$311,502 -$312,816 -$314,174 -$315,581 -$317,039 -$318,551 -$320,122 -$321,755 -$323,456 -$325,227 Table 39. Sensitivity Analysis For Fire Station 16 EVCS, 10-Yr. Cash Flow Price to Charge EV ($/kWh) EVCS Utilization Rate
3% 5% 7% 9% 11% 13% 15% 17% 20%
$0.25 $(343,631) $(348,788) $(353,945) $(359,102) $(364,258) $(369,415) $(374,572) $(378,795) $(382,460) $0.28 $(340,351) $(343,320) $(346,290) $(349,259) $(352,229) $(355,199) $(358,168) $(360,567) $(362,572) $0.31 $(337,070) $(337,852) $(338,635) $(339,417) $(340,200) $(340,982) $(341,764) $(342,338) $(342,685) $0.34 $(333,789) $(332,385) $(330,980) $(329,575) $(328,170) $(326,766) $(325,361) $(324,109) $(322,797) $0.37 $(330,509) $(326,917) $(323,325) $(319,733) $(316,141) $(312,549) $(308,957) $(305,880) $(302,909) $0.40 $(327,228) $(321,449) $(315,670) $(309,891) $(304,112) $(298,332) $(292,553) $(287,652) $(283,021) $0.43 $(323,947) $(315,981) $(308,015) $(300,048) $(292,082) $(284,116) $(276,150) $(269,423) $(263,133) $0.46 $(320,666) $(310,513) $(300,360) $(290,206) $(280,053) $(269,899) $(259,746) $(251,194) $(243,245) $0.49 $(317,386) $(305,045) $(292,705) $(280,364) $(268,023) $(255,683) $(243,342) $(232,965) $(223,357) $0.52 $(314,105) $(299,577) $(285,049) $(270,522) $(255,994) $(241,466) $(226,939) $(214,737) $(203,469) $0.55 $(310,824) $(294,109) $(277,394) $(260,680) $(243,965) $(227,250) $(210,535) $(196,508) $(183,581) 2041
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 79
Table 40. Fire Station 17 EVCS Project Cash Flow Analysis Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Upfront Capital Cost -$562,000
LCFS Credits $1,521 $1,597 $1,677 $1,760 $1,848 $1,941 $2,038 $2,140 $2,247 $2,359 $2,477 Maintenance Cost -$1,020 -$1,051 -$1,082 -$1,115 -$1,148 -$1,182 -$1,218 -$1,254 -$1,292 -$1,331 -$1,371 Networking Fees -$1,080 -$1,112 -$1,146 -$1,180 -$1,216 -$1,252 -$1,290 -$1,328 -$1,368 -$1,409 -$1,451 Charger Utilization 10% 11% 11% 12% 12% 13% 13% 14% 15% 16% 16% kW Delivered Per Year $21,725 $22,811 $23,952 $25,149 $26,407 $27,727 $29,113 $30,569 $32,097 $33,702 $35,387 Charger Use Cost / kWh $0.35 $0.36 $0.37 $0.38 $0.39 $0.41 $0.42 $0.43 $0.44 $0.46 $0.47 Energy Cost to City / kWh $0.38 $0.39 $0.40 $0.42 $0.43 $0.44 $0.45 $0.47 $0.48 $0.50 $0.51 Annual Charger Profit -$652 -$705 -$762 -$824 -$892 -$964 -$1,043 -$1,128 -$1,220 -$1,319 -$1,427 Annual Cashflow -$563,231 -$1,271 -$1,314 -$1,359 -$1,407 -$1,458 -$1,512 -$1,571 -$1,633 -$1,700 -$1,772 NPV (using 5% discount rate) -$574,640
Cumulative Cashflow -$563,231 -$564,502 -$565,816 -$567,174 -$568,581 -$570,039 -$571,551 -$573,122 -$574,755 -$576,456 -$578,227 Table 41. Sensitivity Analysis For Fire Station 17 EVCS, 10-Yr. Cash Flow Price to Charge EV ($/kWh) EVCS Utilization Rate
3% 5% 7% 9% 11% 13% 15% 17% 20%
$0.25 $(596,631) $(601,788) $(606,945) $(612,102) $(617,258) $(622,415) $(627,572) $(631,795) $(635,460) $0.28 $(593,351) $(596,320) $(599,290) $(602,259) $(605,229) $(608,199) $(611,168) $(613,567) $(615,572) $0.31 $(590,070) $(590,852) $(591,635) $(592,417) $(593,200) $(593,982) $(594,764) $(595,338) $(595,685) $0.34 $(586,789) $(585,385) $(583,980) $(582,575) $(581,170) $(579,766) $(578,361) $(577,109) $(575,797) $0.37 $(583,509) $(579,917) $(576,325) $(572,733) $(569,141) $(565,549) $(561,957) $(558,880) $(555,909) $0.40 $(580,228) $(574,449) $(568,670) $(562,891) $(557,112) $(551,332) $(545,553) $(540,652) $(536,021) $0.43 $(576,947) $(568,981) $(561,015) $(553,048) $(545,082) $(537,116) $(529,150) $(522,423) $(516,133) $0.46 $(573,666) $(563,513) $(553,360) $(543,206) $(533,053) $(522,899) $(512,746) $(504,194) $(496,245) $0.49 $(570,386) $(558,045) $(545,705) $(533,364) $(521,023) $(508,683) $(496,342) $(485,965) $(476,357) $0.52 $(567,105) $(552,577) $(538,049) $(523,522) $(508,994) $(494,466) $(479,939) $(467,737) $(456,469) $0.55 $(563,824) $(547,109) $(530,394) $(513,680) $(496,965) $(480,250) $(463,535) $(449,508) $(436,581) 2042
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 80
Table 42. Fire Station 18 EVCS Project Cash Flow Analysis Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Upfront Capital Cost -$490,000
LCFS Credits $1,521 $1,597 $1,677 $1,760 $1,848 $1,941 $2,038 $2,140 $2,247 $2,359 $2,477 Maintenance Cost -$1,020 -$1,051 -$1,082 -$1,115 -$1,148 -$1,182 -$1,218 -$1,254 -$1,292 -$1,331 -$1,371 Networking Fees -$1,080 -$1,112 -$1,146 -$1,180 -$1,216 -$1,252 -$1,290 -$1,328 -$1,368 -$1,409 -$1,451 Charger Utilization 10% 11% 11% 12% 12% 13% 13% 14% 15% 16% 16% kW Delivered Per Year $21,725 $22,811 $23,952 $25,149 $26,407 $27,727 $29,113 $30,569 $32,097 $33,702 $35,387 Charger Use Cost / kWh $0.35 $0.36 $0.37 $0.38 $0.39 $0.41 $0.42 $0.43 $0.44 $0.46 $0.47 Energy Cost to City / kWh $0.38 $0.39 $0.40 $0.42 $0.43 $0.44 $0.45 $0.47 $0.48 $0.50 $0.51 Annual Charger Profit -$652 -$705 -$762 -$824 -$892 -$964 -$1,043 -$1,128 -$1,220 -$1,319 -$1,427 Annual Cashflow -$491,741 -$1,796 -$1,855 -$1,916 -$1,981 -$2,049 -$2,121 -$2,198 -$2,279 -$2,366 -$2,457 NPV (using 5% discount rate) -$507,745
Cumulative Cashflow -$491,741 -$493,537 -$495,392 -$497,308 -$499,289 -$501,338 -$503,459 -$505,657 -$507,937 -$510,302 -$512,759 Table 43. Sensitivity Analysis For Fire Station 18 EVCS, 10-Yr. Cash Flow Price to Charge EV ($/kWh) EVCS Utilization Rate
3% 5% 7% 9% 11% 13% 15% 17% 20%
$0.25 $(531,163) $(536,320) $(541,477) $(546,634) $(551,790) $(556,947) $(562,104) $(566,327) $(569,992) $0.28 $(527,883) $(530,852) $(533,822) $(536,791) $(539,761) $(542,731) $(545,700) $(548,098) $(550,104) $0.31 $(524,602) $(525,384) $(526,167) $(526,949) $(527,732) $(528,514) $(529,296) $(529,870) $(530,217) $0.34 $(521,321) $(519,916) $(518,512) $(517,107) $(515,702) $(514,297) $(512,893) $(511,641) $(510,329) $0.37 $(518,040) $(514,449) $(510,857) $(507,265) $(503,673) $(500,081) $(496,489) $(493,412) $(490,441) $0.40 $(514,760) $(508,981) $(503,202) $(497,423) $(491,644) $(485,864) $(480,085) $(475,183) $(470,553) $0.43 $(511,479) $(503,513) $(495,547) $(487,580) $(479,614) $(471,648) $(463,682) $(456,955) $(450,665) $0.46 $(508,198) $(498,045) $(487,892) $(477,738) $(467,585) $(457,431) $(447,278) $(438,726) $(430,777) $0.49 $(504,918) $(492,577) $(480,236) $(467,896) $(455,555) $(443,215) $(430,874) $(420,497) $(410,889) $0.52 $(501,637) $(487,109) $(472,581) $(458,054) $(443,526) $(428,998) $(414,471) $(402,268) $(391,001) $0.55 $(498,356) $(481,641) $(464,926) $(448,212) $(431,497) $(414,782) $(398,067) $(384,040) $(371,113) 2043
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 81
Table 44. Dublin Sports Ground EVCS Project Cash Flow Analysis Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Upfront Capital Cost -$2,309,000
LCFS Credits $42,096 $44,201 $46,411 $48,732 $51,168 $53,727 $56,413 $59,234 $62,195 $65,305 $68,570 Maintenance Cost -$16,140 -$16,624 -$17,123 -$17,637 -$18,166 -$18,711 -$19,272 -$19,850 -$20,446 -$21,059 -$21,691 Networking Fees -$7,830 -$8,065 -$8,307 -$8,556 -$8,813 -$9,077 -$9,349 -$9,630 -$9,919 -$10,216 -$10,523 Charger Utilization 10% 11% 11% 12% 12% 13% 13% 14% 15% 16% 16% kW Delivered Per Year $601,374 $631,443 $663,015 $696,166 $730,974 $767,523 $805,899 $846,194 $888,503 $932,928 $979,575 Charger Use Cost / kWh $0.43 $0.44 $0.45 $0.46 $0.48 $0.49 $0.51 $0.52 $0.54 $0.55 $0.57 Energy Cost to City / kWh $0.25 $0.26 $0.26 $0.27 $0.28 $0.29 $0.30 $0.31 $0.32 $0.32 $0.33 Annual Charger Profit $105,925 $114,558 $123,895 $133,992 $144,913 $156,723 $169,496 $183,310 $198,250 $214,407 $231,881 Annual Cashflow -$2,201,002 $117,535 $127,844 $138,989 $151,033 $164,051 $178,118 $193,319 $209,744 $227,490 $246,662 NPV (using 5% discount rate) -$889,912
Cumulative Cashflow -$2,201,002 -$2,083,468 -$1,955,623 -$1,816,635 -$1,665,602 -$1,501,551 -$1,323,433 -$1,130,114 -$920,370 -$692,880 -$446,218 Table 45. Sensitivity Analysis For Dublin Sports Ground EVCS, 10-Yr. Cash Flow Price to Charge EV ($/kWh) EVCS Utilization Rate
3% 5% 7% 9% 11% 13% 15% 17% 20%
$0.25 $(2,487,397) $(2,264,582) $(2,041,767) $(1,818,952) $(1,596,137) $(1,373,321) $(1,150,506) $(962,375) $(786,512) $0.28 $(2,441,990) $(2,188,903) $(1,935,816) $(1,682,729) $(1,429,642) $(1,176,554) $(923,467) $(710,076) $(511,248) $0.31 $(2,396,582) $(2,113,223) $(1,829,864) $(1,546,505) $(1,263,146) $(979,788) $(696,429) $(457,777) $(235,984) $0.34 $(2,351,174) $(2,037,543) $(1,723,913) $(1,410,282) $(1,096,651) $(783,021) $(469,390) $(205,477) $39,280 $0.37 $(2,305,766) $(1,961,864) $(1,617,961) $(1,274,059) $(930,156) $(586,254) $(242,351) $46,822 $314,543 $0.40 $(2,260,359) $(1,886,184) $(1,512,010) $(1,137,836) $(763,661) $(389,487) $(15,312) $299,121 $589,807 $0.43 $(2,214,951) $(1,810,505) $(1,406,059) $(1,001,612) $(597,166) $(192,720) $211,726 $551,420 $865,071 $0.46 $(2,169,543) $(1,734,825) $(1,300,107) $(865,389) $(430,671) $4,047 $438,765 $803,719 $1,140,335 $0.49 $(2,124,135) $(1,659,146) $(1,194,156) $(729,166) $(264,176) $200,814 $665,804 $1,056,018 $1,415,599 $0.52 $(2,078,728) $(1,583,466) $(1,088,204) $(592,943) $(97,681) $397,581 $892,842 $1,308,317 $1,690,863 $0.55 $(2,033,320) $(1,507,786) $(982,253) $(456,719) $68,814 $594,348 $1,119,881 $1,560,616 $1,966,127 2044
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 82
Table 46. Emerald Glen Park EVCS Project Cash Flow Analysis Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Upfront Capital Cost -$1,642,000
LCFS Credits $45,953 $48,251 $50,663 $53,197 $55,856 $58,649 $61,582 $64,661 $67,894 $71,289 $74,853 Maintenance Cost -$7,570 -$7,797 -$8,031 -$8,272 -$8,520 -$8,776 -$9,039 -$9,310 -$9,589 -$9,877 -$10,173 Networking Fees -$3,510 -$3,615 -$3,724 -$3,835 -$3,951 -$4,069 -$4,191 -$4,317 -$4,446 -$4,580 -$4,717 Charger Utilization 10% 11% 11% 12% 12% 13% 13% 14% 15% 16% 16% kW Delivered Per Year $656,474 $689,298 $723,763 $759,951 $797,949 $837,846 $879,738 $923,725 $969,912 $1,018,407 $1,069,328 Charger Use Cost / kWh $0.43 $0.44 $0.45 $0.46 $0.48 $0.49 $0.51 $0.52 $0.54 $0.55 $0.57 Energy Cost to City / kWh $0.25 $0.26 $0.26 $0.27 $0.28 $0.29 $0.30 $0.31 $0.32 $0.32 $0.33 Annual Charger Profit $115,631 $125,055 $135,247 $146,269 $158,190 $171,083 $185,026 $200,106 $216,414 $234,052 $253,127 Annual Cashflow -$1,508,697 $144,176 $155,907 $168,563 $182,216 $196,947 $212,839 $229,985 $248,483 $268,440 $289,973 NPV (using 5% discount rate) $61,369
Cumulative Cashflow -$1,508,697 -$1,364,520 -$1,208,613 -$1,040,051 -$857,834 -$660,888 -$448,049 -$218,064 $30,418 $298,859 $588,832 Table 47. Sensitivity Analysis For Emerald Glen Park EVCS, 10-Yr. Cash Flow Price to Charge EV ($/kWh) EVCS Utilization Rate
3% 5% 7% 9% 11% 13% 15% 17% 20%
$0.25 $(1,639,369) $(1,396,139) $(1,152,908) $(909,678) $(666,447) $(423,217) $(179,986) $25,383 $217,359 $0.28 $(1,589,801) $(1,313,525) $(1,037,249) $(760,973) $(484,697) $(208,421) $67,855 $300,798 $517,843 $0.31 $(1,540,233) $(1,230,911) $(921,590) $(612,268) $(302,947) $6,374 $315,696 $576,214 $818,328 $0.34 $(1,490,664) $(1,148,298) $(805,931) $(463,564) $(121,197) $221,170 $563,537 $851,630 $1,118,813 $0.37 $(1,441,096) $(1,065,684) $(690,272) $(314,859) $60,553 $435,965 $811,378 $1,127,046 $1,419,297 $0.40 $(1,391,528) $(983,070) $(574,612) $(166,155) $242,303 $650,761 $1,059,219 $1,402,462 $1,719,782 $0.43 $(1,341,960) $(900,457) $(458,953) $(17,450) $424,053 $865,556 $1,307,060 $1,677,878 $2,020,267 $0.46 $(1,292,392) $(817,843) $(343,294) $131,255 $605,803 $1,080,352 $1,554,901 $1,953,293 $2,320,752 $0.49 $(1,242,823) $(735,229) $(227,635) $279,959 $787,553 $1,295,147 $1,802,742 $2,228,709 $2,621,236 $0.52 $(1,193,255) $(652,616) $(111,976) $428,664 $969,303 $1,509,943 $2,050,583 $2,504,125 $2,921,721 $0.55 $(1,143,687) $(570,002) $3,683 $577,368 $1,151,053 $1,724,738 $2,298,424 $2,779,541 $3,222,206 2045
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 83
Table 48. The Wave EVCS Project Cash Flow Analysis
Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Upfront Capital Cost -$3,278,000
LCFS Credits $45,929 $48,225 $50,636 $53,168 $55,827 $58,618 $61,549 $64,626 $67,858 $71,250 $74,813 Maintenance Cost -$8,080 -$8,322 -$8,572 -$8,829 -$9,094 -$9,367 -$9,648 -$9,937 -$10,236 -$10,543 -$10,859 Networking Fees -$6,210 -$6,396 -$6,588 -$6,786 -$6,989 -$7,199 -$7,415 -$7,638 -$7,867 -$8,103 -$8,346 Charger Utilization 10% 11% 11% 12% 12% 13% 13% 14% 15% 16% 16% kW Delivered Per Year $656,124 $688,930 $723,377 $759,546 $797,523 $837,399 $879,269 $923,232 $969,394 $1,017,864 $1,068,757 Charger Use Cost / kWh $0.43 $0.44 $0.45 $0.46 $0.48 $0.49 $0.51 $0.52 $0.54 $0.55 $0.57 Energy Cost to City / kWh $0.25 $0.26 $0.27 $0.27 $0.28 $0.29 $0.30 $0.31 $0.32 $0.33 $0.34 Annual Charger Profit $114,822 $124,180 $134,300 $145,246 $157,083 $169,886 $183,731 $198,705 $214,900 $232,414 $251,356 Annual Cashflow -$3,131,540 $157,686 $169,776 $182,799 $196,826 $211,938 $228,217 $245,757 $264,655 $285,019 $306,964 NPV (using 5% discount rate) -$1,445,215
Cumulative Cashflow -$3,131,540 -$2,973,854 -$2,804,077 -$2,621,278 -$2,424,452 -$2,212,514 -$1,984,297 -$1,738,540 -$1,473,885 -$1,188,866 -$881,901 Table 49. Sensitivity Analysis For The Wave EVCS, 10-Yr. Cash Flow Price to Charge EV ($/kWh) EVCS Utilization Rate
3% 5% 7% 9% 11% 13% 15% 17% 20%
$0.25 $(3,100,135) $(2,859,542) $(2,618,949) $(2,378,357) $(2,137,764) $(1,897,172) $(1,656,579) $(1,453,413) $(1,263,442) $0.28 $(3,050,593) $(2,776,972) $(2,503,352) $(2,229,732) $(1,956,111) $(1,682,491) $(1,408,871) $(1,178,144) $(963,118) $0.31 $(3,001,051) $(2,694,403) $(2,387,755) $(2,081,107) $(1,774,458) $(1,467,810) $(1,161,162) $(902,875) $(662,794) $0.34 $(2,951,509) $(2,611,833) $(2,272,157) $(1,932,481) $(1,592,805) $(1,253,129) $(913,453) $(627,607) $(362,469) $0.37 $(2,901,968) $(2,529,264) $(2,156,560) $(1,783,856) $(1,411,152) $(1,038,448) $(665,745) $(352,338) $(62,145) $0.40 $(2,852,426) $(2,446,694) $(2,040,963) $(1,635,231) $(1,229,499) $(823,768) $(418,036) $(77,069) $238,179 $0.43 $(2,802,884) $(2,364,125) $(1,925,365) $(1,486,606) $(1,047,846) $(609,087) $(170,327) $198,200 $538,504 $0.46 $(2,753,342) $(2,281,555) $(1,809,768) $(1,337,980) $(866,193) $(394,406) $77,382 $473,469 $838,828 $0.49 $(2,703,801) $(2,198,986) $(1,694,170) $(1,189,355) $(684,540) $(179,725) $325,090 $748,738 $1,139,152 $0.52 $(2,654,259) $(2,116,416) $(1,578,573) $(1,040,730) $(502,887) $34,956 $572,799 $1,024,006 $1,439,477 $0.55 $(2,604,717) $(2,033,846) $(1,462,976) $(892,105) $(321,234) $249,637 $820,508 $1,299,275 $1,739,801 2046
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 84
Table 50. Fallon Sports Park Upper EVCS Project Cash Flow Analysis Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Upfront Capital Cost -$5,045,000
LCFS Credits $73,741 $77,428 $81,299 $85,364 $89,632 $94,114 $98,819 $103,760 $108,948 $114,396 $120,116 Maintenance Cost -$15,630 -$16,099 -$16,582 -$17,079 -$17,592 -$18,119 -$18,663 -$19,223 -$19,800 -$20,394 -$21,005 Networking Fees -$6,210 -$6,396 -$6,588 -$6,786 -$6,989 -$7,199 -$7,415 -$7,638 -$7,867 -$8,103 -$8,346 Charger Utilization 8% 9% 9% 10% 10% 11% 11% 12% 12% 13% 14% kW Delivered Per Year $1,053,437 $1,106,109 $1,161,415 $1,219,485 $1,280,460 $1,344,483 $1,411,707 $1,482,292 $1,556,407 $1,634,227 $1,715,938 Charger Use Cost / kWh $0.43 $0.44 $0.45 $0.46 $0.48 $0.49 $0.51 $0.52 $0.54 $0.55 $0.57 Energy Cost to City / kWh $0.25 $0.26 $0.26 $0.27 $0.28 $0.29 $0.30 $0.31 $0.32 $0.32 $0.33 Annual Charger Profit $185,551 $200,674 $217,029 $234,717 $253,846 $274,535 $296,909 $321,107 $347,277 $375,581 $406,190 Annual Cashflow -$4,840,803 $221,354 $239,878 $259,877 $281,469 $304,778 $329,942 $357,108 $386,433 $418,090 $452,263 NPV (using 5% discount rate) -$2,408,849
Cumulative Cashflow -$4,840,803 -$4,619,449 -$4,379,571 -$4,119,694 -$3,838,226 -$3,533,447 -$3,203,505 -$2,846,397 -$2,459,964 -$2,041,874 -$1,589,610 Table 51. Sensitivity Analysis For Fallon Sports Park Upper EVCS, 10-Yr. Cash Flow Price to Charge EV ($/kWh) EVCS Utilization Rate
3% 5% 7% 9% 11% 13% 15% 17% 20%
$0.25 $(5,053,873) $(4,692,121) $(4,330,369) $(3,968,617) $(3,606,865) $(3,245,113) $(2,883,361) $(2,567,409) $(2,247,791) $0.28 $(4,980,715) $(4,570,192) $(4,159,668) $(3,749,144) $(3,338,621) $(2,928,097) $(2,517,573) $(2,159,465) $(1,798,250) $0.31 $(4,907,558) $(4,448,262) $(3,988,967) $(3,529,672) $(3,070,376) $(2,611,081) $(2,151,785) $(1,751,522) $(1,348,709) $0.34 $(4,834,400) $(4,326,333) $(3,818,266) $(3,310,199) $(2,802,132) $(2,294,064) $(1,785,997) $(1,343,578) $(899,167) $0.37 $(4,761,243) $(4,204,404) $(3,647,565) $(3,090,726) $(2,533,887) $(1,977,048) $(1,420,209) $(935,635) $(449,626) $0.40 $(4,688,085) $(4,082,474) $(3,476,864) $(2,871,253) $(2,265,643) $(1,660,032) $(1,054,421) $(527,691) $(85) $0.43 $(4,614,928) $(3,960,545) $(3,306,163) $(2,651,780) $(1,997,398) $(1,343,016) $(688,633) $(119,748) $449,457 $0.46 $(4,541,770) $(3,838,616) $(3,135,462) $(2,432,308) $(1,729,154) $(1,026,000) $(322,845) $288,196 $898,998 $0.49 $(4,468,612) $(3,716,687) $(2,964,761) $(2,212,835) $(1,460,909) $(708,983) $42,943 $696,139 $1,348,539 $0.52 $(4,395,455) $(3,594,757) $(2,794,060) $(1,993,362) $(1,192,665) $(391,967) $408,730 $1,104,083 $1,798,081 $0.55 $(4,322,297) $(3,472,828) $(2,623,359) $(1,773,889) $(924,420) $(74,951) $774,518 $1,512,026 $2,247,622 2047
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 85
Table 52. Fallon Sports Park Lower EVCS Project Cash Flow Analysis Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Upfront Capital Cost -$1,234,000
LCFS Credits $27,125 $28,481 $29,905 $31,400 $32,970 $34,619 $36,350 $38,167 $40,076 $42,079 $44,183 Maintenance Cost -$4,020 -$4,141 -$4,265 -$4,393 -$4,525 -$4,660 -$4,800 -$4,944 -$5,092 -$5,245 -$5,403 Networking Fees -$1,350 -$1,391 -$1,432 -$1,475 -$1,519 -$1,565 -$1,612 -$1,660 -$1,710 -$1,761 -$1,814 Charger Utilization 8% 9% 9% 10% 10% 11% 11% 12% 12% 13% 14% kW Delivered Per Year $387,496 $406,871 $427,215 $448,575 $471,004 $494,554 $519,282 $545,246 $572,508 $601,134 $631,191 Charger Use Cost / kWh $0.43 $0.44 $0.45 $0.46 $0.48 $0.49 $0.51 $0.52 $0.54 $0.55 $0.57 Energy Cost to City / kWh $0.25 $0.26 $0.26 $0.27 $0.28 $0.29 $0.30 $0.31 $0.32 $0.32 $0.33 Annual Charger Profit $68,253 $73,816 $79,832 $86,338 $93,375 $100,985 $109,215 $118,116 $127,743 $138,154 $149,413 Annual Cashflow -$1,156,606 $83,773 $90,658 $98,087 $106,104 $114,755 $124,091 $134,165 $145,037 $156,768 $169,427 NPV (using 5% discount rate) -$241,474
Cumulative Cashflow -$1,156,606 -$1,072,833 -$982,175 -$884,088 -$777,984 -$663,229 -$539,138 -$404,972 -$259,936 -$103,168 $66,260 Table 53. Sensitivity Analysis For Fallon Sports Park Lower EVCS, 10-Yr. Cash Flow Price to Charge EV ($/kWh) EVCS Utilization Rate
3% 5% 7% 9% 11% 13% 15% 17% 20%
$0.25 $(1,214,419) $(1,081,352) $(948,286) $(815,219) $(682,152) $(549,085) $(416,018) $(299,799) $(182,230) $0.28 $(1,187,509) $(1,036,502) $(885,495) $(734,488) $(583,481) $(432,474) $(281,467) $(149,741) $(16,871) $0.31 $(1,160,599) $(991,652) $(822,704) $(653,757) $(484,810) $(315,863) $(146,916) $317 $148,488 $0.34 $(1,133,688) $(946,801) $(759,914) $(573,026) $(386,139) $(199,252) $(12,364) $150,375 $313,847 $0.37 $(1,106,778) $(901,951) $(697,123) $(492,295) $(287,468) $(82,640) $122,187 $300,433 $479,206 $0.40 $(1,079,868) $(857,100) $(634,332) $(411,565) $(188,797) $33,971 $256,739 $450,491 $644,566 $0.43 $(1,052,958) $(812,250) $(571,542) $(330,834) $(90,126) $150,582 $391,290 $600,549 $809,925 $0.46 $(1,026,047) $(767,399) $(508,751) $(250,103) $8,545 $267,193 $525,841 $750,607 $975,284 $0.49 $(999,137) $(722,549) $(445,960) $(169,372) $107,216 $383,805 $660,393 $900,665 $1,140,643 $0.52 $(972,227) $(677,698) $(383,170) $(88,641) $205,887 $500,416 $794,944 $1,050,723 $1,306,003 $0.55 $(945,316) $(632,848) $(320,379) $(7,910) $304,558 $617,027 $929,496 $1,200,780 $1,471,362 2048
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 86
Table 54. Alamo Creek Park EVCS Project Cash Flow Analysis Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Upfront Capital Cost -$329,000
LCFS Credits $4,072 $4,275 $4,489 $4,713 $4,949 $5,197 $5,456 $5,729 $6,016 $6,316 $6,632 Maintenance Cost -$1,020 -$1,051 -$1,082 -$1,115 -$1,148 -$1,182 -$1,218 -$1,254 -$1,292 -$1,331 -$1,371 Networking Fees -$1,080 -$1,112 -$1,146 -$1,180 -$1,216 -$1,252 -$1,290 -$1,328 -$1,368 -$1,409 -$1,451 Charger Utilization 10% 11% 11% 12% 12% 13% 13% 14% 15% 16% 16% kW Delivered Per Year $58,166 $61,075 $64,128 $67,335 $70,702 $74,237 $77,949 $81,846 $85,938 $90,235 $94,747 Charger Use Cost / kWh $0.35 $0.36 $0.37 $0.38 $0.39 $0.41 $0.42 $0.43 $0.44 $0.46 $0.47 Energy Cost to City / kWh $0.24 $0.25 $0.26 $0.27 $0.27 $0.28 $0.29 $0.30 $0.31 $0.32 $0.33 Annual Charger Profit $6,170 $6,673 $7,216 $7,804 $8,441 $9,128 $9,872 $10,677 $11,547 $12,488 $13,506 Annual Cashflow -$323,152 $6,422 $7,044 $7,717 $8,445 $9,232 $10,083 $11,003 $11,997 $13,072 $14,234 NPV (using 5% discount rate) -$249,170
Cumulative Cashflow -$323,152 -$316,730 -$309,685 -$301,968 -$293,523 -$284,292 -$274,209 -$263,206 -$251,209 -$238,136 -$223,903 Table 55. Sensitivity Analysis For Alamo Creek Park EVCS, 10-Yr. Cash Flow Price to Charge EV ($/kWh) EVCS Utilization Rate
3% 5% 7% 9% 11% 13% 15% 17% 20%
$0.25 $(366,140) $(353,386) $(340,632) $(327,878) $(315,125) $(302,371) $(289,617) $(278,762) $(268,426) $0.28 $(357,356) $(338,746) $(320,136) $(301,527) $(282,917) $(264,307) $(245,698) $(229,956) $(215,177) $0.31 $(348,572) $(324,106) $(299,641) $(275,175) $(250,709) $(226,244) $(201,778) $(181,150) $(161,929) $0.34 $(339,788) $(309,466) $(279,145) $(248,823) $(218,502) $(188,180) $(157,859) $(132,344) $(108,680) $0.37 $(331,004) $(294,827) $(258,649) $(222,472) $(186,294) $(150,117) $(113,939) $(83,538) $(55,432) $0.40 $(322,220) $(280,187) $(238,153) $(196,120) $(154,086) $(112,053) $(70,020) $(34,732) $(2,184) $0.43 $(313,436) $(265,547) $(217,657) $(169,768) $(121,879) $(73,989) $(26,100) $14,074 $51,065 $0.46 $(304,652) $(250,907) $(197,162) $(143,416) $(89,671) $(35,926) $17,819 $62,880 $104,313 $0.49 $(295,868) $(236,267) $(176,666) $(117,065) $(57,463) $2,138 $61,739 $111,686 $157,562 $0.52 $(287,085) $(221,627) $(156,170) $(90,713) $(25,256) $40,201 $105,659 $160,492 $210,810 $0.55 $(278,301) $(206,988) $(135,674) $(64,361) $6,952 $78,265 $149,578 $209,298 $264,059 2049
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 87
Appendix D – Selected Policy Review
AB1236 and AB970
Permitting requirements and prolonged approval timelines have been, and still are, significant barriers to installing EVCS. To encourage a consistent and efficient permitting process for EVCS, California passed Assembly Bill 1236 in October 2015 requiring all cities and counties to develop streamlined EV charging station permitting protocols by September 30, 2017. Then, on October 8, 2021, California passed Assembly Bill 970 as follow-on legislation to establish timelines for cities to approve EVCS permit applications which went into effect January 1, 2023. The legislation is designed to create uniform standards to facilitate permitting and decrease overall EVCS installation costs to support increased EV ownership.

Key requirements of AB1236 and AB970 for municipalities include:
• Adopt an ordinance that creates an expedited, streamlined permitting process for EVCS including Level 2 and DCFCs.
• Post a checklist of all requirements needed for expedited review on the municipal website. • Administratively approve through building or another non-discretionary permit all EVCS projects that meet the expedited checklist requirements. • Review EVCS projects with a focus on health and safety. • Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) accepts electronic signatures on permit applications. • EVCS permit approval not subject to approval of an association (as defined in sec. 4080 of Civil Code).
• AHJ commits to issuing one complete written correction notice detailing all deficiencies in an incomplete application and any additional information needed to be eligible for expedited permit issuance.
• An application must be deemed complete within the following timeframes if the municipality has not deemed the application incomplete, or issued a written notice of deficiencies:
• 5 business days for applications up to 25 charging stations. • 10 business days for applications with more than 25 charging stations. • Deem applications approved within the following timelines after an application has been deemed complete if the AHJ has not (i) administratively approved the application, (ii) found any adverse impact on public health and safety, (iii) denied the permit, or (iv) made an appeal to the planning commission:
• 20 business days for applications up to 25 charging stations. • 40 business days for applications with more than 25 charging stations. • If an EV charging station or associated equipment would reduce the number of parking spaces at a site, the AHJ shall reduce the number of required parking spaces required for existing uses at the location.

The City is currently in full compliance with AB1236 and has streamlined its EV permitting process.

The City’s Building and Safety Division manages compliance with review times when permits for EVCS projects are submitted.
2050
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 88
Building Code and Reach Codes
The California Green Building Code (CALGreen) has requirements for EV Infrastructure as part of new construction projects. CALGreen codes include minimum mandatory measures that must be adopted by all municipalities as part of the triannual building code update. The City of Dublin has consistently adopted voluntary Tier II reach codes for EV infrastructure as mandatory. Several northern California CCAs work together to reduce GHG emissions within their service territories by developing forwardthinking building and transportation electrification reach codes32. The City of Dublin should continue to track these developments and may consider adopting more stringent codes in the future.

Historically building codes addressed EV infrastructure through new construction and major modification projects. The 2022 mid-cycle update, which went into effect July 1, 2024, was the first code cycle to include additional EVCS requirements when smaller non-residential building modification projects occur, specifically:
• When the scope of construction work includes an increase in power supply to an electric service panel as part of a parking facility addition or alteration. • When a new photovoltaic system is installed covering existing parking spaces. • When additions or alterations to existing buildings with a permit value greater than $200,000 and the scope of work includes an increase in power supply to an electric service panel.

The latest code updates require EV infrastructure to be installed based on the total number of parking stalls affected by the project, i.e. the quantity of stalls covered by a solar canopy. For projects that trigger a service upgrade, EV infrastructure requirements are based on the total number of parking stalls at the site. These new requirements are expected to increase EV infrastructure when projects that impact the parking lot or are bringing in new power are proposed, which will reduce the incremental cost of installing EVCS infrastructure. Code cycles generally get more stringent over time, increasing the quantity of EVCS capable stalls that must be included in projects and the quality of EVCS that must be installed.

CA Civil Code 1947.6
Installing EVCS in multifamily dwellings and, more broadly, within the residential rental sector, presents significant and well-documented challenges. In an effort to help reduce some of the barriers in this sector, the California passed Civil Code 1947.6, which essentially requires landlords to accept a tenant’s written request to install an EVCS, barring certain exemptions, provided that the tenant is willing to pay for all upfront and ongoing costs, among other conditions33. The rule applies to leases executed, extended, or renewed on and after July 1, 2015, or if rent controlled, a lease executed, extended, or renewed on and after January 1, 2019.

Residential rental properties are exempt from this if:
• Electric vehicle charging stations already exist for lessees in a ratio that is equal to or greater than 10 percent of the designated parking spaces.
• Parking is not provided as part of the lease agreement. • There are fewer than five parking spaces.
32 https://bayareareachcodes.org/
33 https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-1947-6.html 2051
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 89
Landlords are not required to provide an additional parking space to a lessee to accommodate an electric vehicle charging station and landlords are allowed to charge a monthly parking fee if adding the EVCS results in a reserved parking space for the tenant. A tenant’s written request to install an EVCS shall include, but is not limited to, the tenant’s consent to enter into a written agreement that includes the following:
• Compliance with the landlord’s requirements for the installation, use, maintenance, and removal of the charging station.
• Compliance with the landlord’s requirements for the lessee to provide a complete financial analysis and scope of work regarding the installation of the charging station and its infrastructure.
• A written description of how, when, and where the modifications and improvements to the property are proposed to be made consistent with those items specified in the “Permitting Checklist” of the “Zero-Emission Vehicles in California: Community Readiness Guidebook” published by the Office of Planning and Research.
• Obligation of the tenant to pay the landlord all costs associated with the landlord’s installation of the charging station and its infrastructure prior to any modification or improvement being made to the leased property. The costs associated with modifications and improvements shall include, but are not limited to, the cost of permits, supervision, construction, and solely if required by the contractor, consistent with its past performance of work for the landlord, performance bonds.
• Obligation of the tenant to pay as part of rent for the costs associated with the electrical usage of the charging station, and cost for damage, maintenance, repair, removal, and replacement of the charging station, and modifications or improvements made to the property associated with the charging station.

The tenant shall obtain personal liability coverage in an amount not to exceed 10 times the annual rent changed for the dwelling, covering property damage and personal injury proximately caused by the installation or operation of the electric vehicle charging station. The policy shall be maintained in full force and effect from the time of installation of the electric vehicle charging station until the electric vehicle charging station is removed or the tenant forfeits possession of the dwelling to the lessor. Insurance is not required if:
• The electric vehicle charging station has been certified by a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory that is approved by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the United States Department of Labor AND
• The electric vehicle charging station and any associated alterations to the dwelling's electrical system are performed by a licensed electrician.
2052
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 90
Appendix E – Estimating Average $/GGE Health Benefit in Dublin, CA It is estimated that local health benefits in Dublin would average $0.19 per gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) reduction from continuing to electrify light-duty on-road transportation through 2035. The time period analyzed in this model is based on the monetary health benefit data available (2017- 2035) for removing on-road transportation, as referenced in E3’s air quality report34.

The following data sources were utilized in the calculation:
• Cumulative monetary health benefit data per census tract in the Bay Area Air District (BAAD) region (includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, western portion of Solano, southern portion of Sonoma counties) 35 • CA Air Resources Board EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) fuel and energy consumption data recorded for vehicles in the Bay Area from the year 201736
• CA Air Resources Board EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) projected fuel and energy consumption data for vehicles in the Bay Area for the year 2035
• Typical fuel and energy conversions to GGE (Table 56) 37 Table 56. GGE Fuel Conversions
Fuel Type Fuel Measurement Unit GGE Conversion Factor
CNG @ 3000 psi Gallons @ 3000 psi 0.239
Diesel Gallons 1.155
Electricity kWh 0.031
Gasoline Gallons 1.000
Plug in Hybrid Electricity (kWh) & Gas (Gallons) Electricity (0.031) & Gas (1.0) The annual fuel and energy consumption data for vehicles in the Bay Area Region was converted to annual GGE by vehicle class (light, medium, and heavy duty) as shown in Table 57. Assuming a linear relationship between monetary health savings and GGE reduction over time regardless of vehicle type/class, the annual $/GGE reduction in the Bay Area was estimated for each vehicle class using a weighted average of total GGE. The EVCS evaluated in this project are geared towards supporting light duty vehicles, therefore, $0.19/GGE was used for this Plan.

Table 57. Total Fuel Usage in the BAAD Region
Year Annual GGE by Vehicle Class
Light Duty Medium Duty Heavy Duty
2017 1,957,334,346 400,844,564 424,989,858
2035 1,567,841,634 377,611,085 413,471,210
Total GGE Reduction: 389,492,711 23,233,479 11,518,648
34 Quantifying the Air Quality Impacts of Decarbonization and Distributed Energy Programs in CA 35 Bay Area AQMD 36 CA Air Resources Board - EMFAC Emissions Inventory 37 US Dept of Energy - Fuel Conversion Factors to Gasoline Gallon Equivalents 2053
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 91
Overall findings on the monetary value of health benefits gained by reducing GGEs are shown in Table 58 below.

Table 58. Monetary Value of Health Benefits from GGE Reductions Light Duty Medium Duty Heavy Duty Total
GGE Reduction (from 2017-2035) 389,492,711 23,233,479 11,518,648 424,244,838 % of Total GGE 68% 15% 16% 100%
Est. Annual Monetary Health Benefit
Savings for Bay Area $73,203,175 $16,273,815 $17,551,595 $107,028,585 Estimated $/GGE for Bay Area $0.19 $0.70 $1.52 $0.25
2054
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 92
Appendix F – EV Readiness Plan Survey Results
Figure 17. EVCS Survey Result – Stakeholders
Figure 18. EVCS Survey Result – EV Ownership
82%
16%
1% 1%

STAKEHOLDERS
(ALL THAT APPLY)
Homeowner
Renter
Business Owner
Property Owner
66% 15%
10%
3% 6%

EV OWNERSHIP
Own/Lease
Undecided
Next 12-24 mo
Next 6 mo
No
2055
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 93
Figure 19. EVCS Survey Result – EV Incentive Awareness
Figure 20. EVCS Survey Result – EV Ownership
Figure 21. EVCS Survey Result – EV Ownership
29%
17% 25%
13%
10%
4% 2%

EV INCENTIVE AWARENESS (ALL THAT APPLY)
CA Rebate
Federal IRA, New Purchase
Federal IRA, Pre-Owned Purchase
PG&E Pre-Owned Rebate
No
PG&E Charging Rebate
Other
27%
22% 22%
17%
8% 4%

EV MOTIVATORS
(ALL THAT APPLY)
Environment
Avoid Fuel Prices
Cost of Ownership
Incentives
Availability
Other
25%
20%
18%
15%
11%
6%
3% 2%
EV OWNERSHIP CONCERNS (SELECT 3)
Insufficient Public Charging
Range
Charge Time
Vehicle Cost
No home charging
Vehicle Options
Maintenance Costs
Other
2056
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 94
Figure 22. EVCS Survey Result – EV Ownership
Figure 23. EVCS Survey Result – EV Ownership
Figure 24. EVCS Survey Result – EV Ownership
43%
35%
16%
6%

PREFERRED CHARGING SPEED
DCFC (charge in 30 mins)
Level 2 (Charge in few hrs.)
Need More Info
No Preference
45%
36%
7%
12%

WORKPLACE CHARGING
Yes
No
Not Sure
Not Applicable
17%
15%
13%
11%
10%
10%
9%
7%
6% 2%

PREFERRED CHARGING LOCATIONS (ALL

THAT APPLY)
Recreation
Commercial/Retail
Public Parking Lots
Transit
Home
Healthcare
Schools
Work
2057
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 95
Appendix G – PG&E/Ava Rate Schedules
Typical Commercial Electric Rate Schedules
Typical medium and large commercial rates (such as PG&E’s and Ava’s Business Medium Use B-10 or Medium-High Use B-19 tariffs) usually include three distinct cost components: a fixed customer charge, a volumetric energy charge, and a traditional demand charge based on the single highest 15- minute interval of demand during the billing period. The demand charge in these general service rates can be a significant portion of the bill for businesses with large or variable loads, as it directly reflects peak usage and is billed in $/kW (~$15+/kW). There may be multiple demand charges for the overall peak demand AND the peak demand that occurs during on-peak times. The energy charge under these commercial time of use (TOU) rate plans varies by season and time of day, with higher energy rates during peak grid demand hours (e.g., afternoons and early evenings) and lower rates during off-peak hours, but the presence of both demand and volumetric charges means customers face dual signals for reducing peaks and shifting usage.

EV-Specific Rate Schedules
When a new service is dedicated to only EVCS loads, the service is eligible for an EV-specific rate schedule (such as PG&E’s or Ava’s BEV-1 or BEV-2 tariffs). Under PG&E’s BEV rate tariffs (Figure 25), the pricing structure is designed specifically for commercial EV charging installations and differs fundamentally from standard commercial rates. Rather than traditional demand charges tied to measured peak load, BEV rates uses a subscription-based model where the customer selects a monthly kW subscription level in set blocks (e.g., 10kW or 50 kW increments) that reflects expected peak usage; this subscription charge effectively replaces conventional demand charges. If actual demand exceeds the subscription level during a billing cycle, overage fees at a higher per-kW rate apply. These subscription charges amount to a ~$2/kW demand charge, significantly lower than comparable commercial rates. The volumetric energy portion is billed on a TOU basis, with prices varying by period (peak/off-peak), encouraging charging when grid costs are lower. The subscription model provides greater predictability compared with fluctuating demand charges and simplifies budgeting for high-use EV charging operations
2058
City of Dublin EV Infrastructure Plan 96
Figure 25. PG&E BEV Rate Tariff
2059
RESOLUTION NO. 100 - 20

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * *
ADOPTING THE CITY OF DUBLIN CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2030 AND BEYOND WHEREAS, on November 16, 2010 the City Council adopted Resolution 167-10 approving the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan establishing greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals for 2020;and
WHEREAS, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) a city may prepare a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy or Climate Action Plan to evaluate a community's cumulative impact due to GHG emissions from future planned development; and WHEREAS, if a project is consistent with an adopted, qualified GHG Reduction Strategy or Climate Action Plan, the Strategy/Plan can be used as a basis for determining that the project would have a less than significant impact on a community's cumulative GHG emissions under CEQA; and
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2013 the City Council adopted Resolution 177-13 approving the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update to use as a basis for determining that a future project that was consistent with the adopted Climate Action Plan Update would have a less than significant impact on Dublin's cumulative GHG emissions under CEQA through 2020; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is on track to meet the 2020 GHG reduction goals established by the Plans; and
WHEREAS, in 2016, the California Legislature adopted Senate Bill (SB) 32 to extend the State's commitment to GHG emissions reductions by tightening the target to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030; and
WHEREAS, in 2018, Governor Brown adopted Executive Order (EO) B-55-18 setting a Statewide goal of reaching carbon neutrality by no later than 2045; and WHEREAS, on December 17, 2019, the City Council provided consensus to align the City's future Climate Action Plan with both SB 32 and EO B-55-18 goals and consensus to proceed with the draft strategies and measures to achieve those goals; and WHEREAS, the Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond establishes the following targets:

1. Reduce GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030

2. Reach carbon neutrality by 2045; and
WHEREAS, the Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond contains 22 measures grouped into the five strategies listed below to reduce GHG emissions by roughly 73,000 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent by 2030:

1. 100% Renewable and Carbon-Free Electricity

2. Building Efficiency and Electrification

3. Sustainable Mobility and Land Use
Reso No. 100-20, Item 6.1, Adopted 09/15/2020 Page 1 of 2 Attachment 3
2060

4. Material and Waste Management

5. Municipal Leadership; and
WHEREAS, the implementation of the Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond will result in co-benefits in the following areas: economic growth, reduced traffic congestion, improved public health, healthier ecosystems, robust landscapes, carbon sequestration, enhanced resilience, equity and inclusion, community leadership and partnerships, and cutting-edge technologies; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond and related Negative Declaration on September 15, 2020; and WHEREAS, the City Council did review and consider the Negative Declaration and the Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond and all said reports, recommendations, and testimony herein and set forth prior to making its decision on the Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby approve and adopt the Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond attached hereto as Exhibit A to the Resolution and authorizes Staff to make any non-substantive grammatical or editing changes in the final document.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of September 2020, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Goel, Hernandez, Josey, Kumagai and Mayor Haubert NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk
Reso No. 100-20, Item 6.1, Adopted 09/15/2020 Page 2 of 2 Attachment 3
2061
Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure Plan
June 16, 2026
2062
Background
• Adopted September 15, 2020
• Includes a goal to achieve carbon
neutrality by 2045
• Identifies transportation as the
largest source of emissions
oMeasure SM-1, Adopt an Electric
Vehicle (EV) Charging Station
Ordinance
oMeasure SM-2, Develop an EV
Infrastructure Plan
2063
EV Infrastructure Plan Key Components
EV Charging Station Infrastructure Needs
Suitability Analysis
Site Evaluations & Concept Plans for City Owned Sites
EV Ownership & Maintenance Models
Funding Opportunities
Policy Considerations & Next Steps
2064
EV Charging Station Infrastructure Needs
Target Year
Scenario
EV Registration
Target
Level 2 EVCS
Port Target
DCFC Port
Target
Total Installed
Level 2 Ports
(March 2026)
Total Installed
DCFC Ports (March
2026)
Level 2
Gap
DCFC
Gap
2030
(State)
18,536
(23% EVs)
387 389 222 78 165 311
2030
(Dublin CAP)
20,148
(33% EVs)
420 423 222 78 198 345
2035
(State)
42,164
(50% EVs)
884 888 222 78 662 810
2045
(Dublin CAP)
68,929
(100% EVs)
1,446 1,451 222 78 1,224 1,373
Table 1. Electric Vehicle Charging Station (EVCS) Port Targets, High DCFC Pathway 2065
Suitability Analysis
• High density residential and employment areas
• Job training and education facilities
• Commercial areas suitable for morning or
midday charging
Purpose: Determine
optimal locations to
install infrastructure
to equitably meet
demand
• Thirteen high-ranking private sites were
identified; City sites prioritized
Evaluated Cityowned locations and
private sites
2066
Site Evaluations & Concept Plans for
City-Owned Sites
• Reviewed all City-owned parking lots with concept plans for each • Potential for 150 added Level 2 chargers and 36 DC Fast Chargers – estimated cost of $21,425,000
• Cost recovery achievable for electricity, networking, and maintenance
2067
EV Ownership & Maintenance Models
• Four ownership models were
reviewed:
• Host-owned
• Vendor-owned
• Hybrid host-/vendor-owned
• Charging-as-a-service
• The Plan also contemplates
partnering with Ava
Community Energy
2068
Funding Opportunities
Funding sources identified
include:

California Energy Commission CALeVIP
California Air Resources Board Low
Carbon Fuel Standards program
Tracking tools identified
2069
Policy Considerations & Next Steps
• City-Owned Infrastructure
• Evaluate the role of City ownership
• Expand EVCS at key City sites
• Explore curbside charging feasibility
• Private and Community Partnerships
• Engage private sector partners
• Collaborate with Ava Community Energy
2070
Policy Considerations & Next Steps, 2
• Prepare for funding and incentive opportunities
• Review low carbon fuel standard credits
• Continue to implement California Green Building Code reach codes
2071
Environmental Determination
• The Plan is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act since it is a planning-level policy document that does not authorize or approve any specific construction projects.
• Future projects would undergo a project level review and would be brought to City Council with a recommendation for funding. 2072
Staff Recommendation
• Receive the report and adopt the Resolution Approving the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Plan and Finding the Plan Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
2073

Dublin City CouncilJune 16, 2026

Dublin City Council
June 16, 2026