Loading...
Item 6.2 - 3154 At Dublin Page 1 of 22 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL DATE: June 16, 2020 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager SUBJECT: At Dublin Project (PLPA-2017-00061) Prepared by: Amy Million, Principal Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council will consider the At Dublin project which includes development of up to 566 residential units including apartments, detached small-lot single-family homes and 55 and older age restricted single-family homes, up to 240,000 square feet of retail commercial development, and related infrastructure and landscape improvements. The project is located on a 76.9-acre site primarily bound by Tassajara Road, Interstate 580, Brannigan Street and Gleason Drive. Requested approvals include General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, a Planned Development Rezone with Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, Vesting Tentative Map Nos. 8440, 8449 and 8452, a Street Vacation, and a Development Agreement. The City Council will also consider certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a public hearing, deliberate and take the following actions: a) adopt the Resolution Amending the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Related to the At Dublin Project; b) waive the reading and INTRODUCE an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map and Approving a Planned Development Zoning District with a Related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan; c) adopt the Resolution Approving Vesting Tentative Map Nos. 8440, 8449,and 8452 for the At Dublin Project; d) waive the reading and INTRODUCE an Ordinance Approving a Development Agreement Between the City of Dublin and SCS Development Company Related to the At Dublin Project; and e) adopt the Resolution Certifying an Environmental Impact Report and Adopting Environmental Impact Findings, Findings Regarding Alternatives, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the At Dublin Project FINANCIAL IMPACT: The review of this project required a fiscal analysis and the conclusions of which are included in the body of the report. To summarize, the project, as proposed, would generate nearly $2.0 million in net new tax revenue annually to the City’s General Fund. There is also anticipated one-time construction-related revenues that are estimated to exceed $1.06 million. Page 2 of 22 DESCRIPTION: Background The At Dublin project is proposed on property formerly owned by the Dublin Land Company. The 76.9-gross-acre property is located north of I-580 between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street and extends to the north of Gleason Drive (Figure 1). The property is located in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area and has Planned Development Zoning (Resolution No. 104-94) adopted with the EDSP. The site is generally surrounded by commercial uses to the southwest and southeast and residential uses to the northwest and northeast. The site is undeveloped and is generally flat with a slight slope from a higher elevation at the northerly boundary to a slightly lower elevation towards the southerly boundary. At one time the property was used for agricultural purposes and has remained vacant (except for temporary seasonal uses) with low-lying native and non-native grasses turned periodically for the purposes of weed abatement. A small group of trees and shrubs is located near the corner of Tassajara Road and Central Parkway. No grading for development purposes has occurred to date. The majority of the site, excluding the most northerly portion, is located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA)/Overlay Zoning District. The AIA is a designation by the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission. This area is designated as a location in Page 3 of 22 which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety and/or airspace protection factors may affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses. On October 3, 2017, the City Council initiated a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to evaluate changing the land use designation of the project site. On October 30, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 18-24, recommending that the City Council deny the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments and the entirety of the At Dublin project which originally incl uded 665 residential units, 400,500 square feet of commercial development and a 2.23 -acre public park as further described below. The Planning Commission recommended denial on the basis that the proposed project was not in the public’s best interest, and i t was inconsistent with the longstanding vision for these parcels which is for less housing and more office/commercial with a town center feel and walkable environment. On November 20, 2018, following a request from the Applicant, the City Council continued the project to an undetermined future date. Subsequently, the Applicant evaluated potential revisions to the project and on June 4, 2019, the City Council held a Study Session to receive a presentation by the Applicant regarding those changes. The Applicant also held a community open house in August 2019 to share the revisions to the project and receive feedback from the community. In October 2019, the Applicant submitted a revised project consisting of up to 566 residential units composed of apartments, detached small-lot single family homes and 55-and-older age-restricted single-family homes, and up to 240,000 square feet of retail commercial development. On February 25, 2020, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended that the City Council deny the At Dublin project. The Commission commented that the proposed project was an improvement to the previous project presented in 2018, including the addition of the age-qualified housing in PA-2. However, they expressed concerns regarding traffic, the little amount of commercial and retail, the parking layout, the new signalized intersection, and the project’s lack of contribution to the Tassajara “gateway.” The Planning Commission Resolution and the Draft Meeting Minutes are included as Attachments 1 and 2. On March 17, 2020 and April 7, 2020, following requests by the Applicant, the City Council postponed consideration of the At Dublin project. Previous Project The previous proposed mixed-use project consisted of up to 665 residential units including apartments, townhomes, and detached small-lot single family homes and up to 400,500 sf of commercial, related infrastructure, a public park, and landscape improvements. Requested land use approvals included a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Zoning, Site Development Review Permit, Vesting Tentative Map, Street Vacation, and Development Agreement. Page 4 of 22 Current Project The current project proposes a mixed-use development, which consists of up to 566 residential units and up to 240,000 square feet of commercial uses. The proposed project is grouped into four planning areas (PA-1, PA-2, PA-3 and PA-4) as show in Figure 2 below. Planning Area 1 (PA-1), located south of Dublin Boulevard, is propose d to accommodate a 240-unit apartment building and mix of retail and regional-serving commercial uses including a movie theater, office building, hotel, gas station, drive -thru restaurant and a variety of restaurant and retail uses totaling approximately 2 40,000 square feet. PA-2 is located between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway and is proposed to accommodate 196 age-qualified homes for ages 55 years and older. The community would be composed of 109 single-family detached homes, 87 duet-style homes and a clubhouse. PA-3 and PA-4 are located north of Central Parkway and would include small-lot single- family detached homes. An overview of the Planning Areas is provided in Table 1 below: Table 1. Planning Areas Planning Area (PA) Proposed Uses Location PA-1 Mixed use with regional and neighborhood commercial uses and apartments South of Dublin Boulevard PA-2 Single-family residential and duplex (age qualified 55+) North of Dublin Boulevard PA-3 and PA-4 Small-lot single-family residential North of Central Parkway To accommodate the project, the Applicant is seeking the following entitlements, which are described in further detail below: • General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments; • Planned Development Rezone with Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans; • Vesting Tentative Maps; • Vacation of Northside Drive; and • Development Agreement. Additional discretionary approvals are required to implement the project; however, they Page 5 of 22 are not requested at this time. Those include approval of a Site De velopment Review Permit by the Planning Commission for the architectural and site plan details as well as a Master Sign Program/Site Development Review Permit by the Community Development Director for the commercial signage. ANALYSIS: General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments The site has several existing General Plan and EDSP land use designations as shown in Figure 3 and Table 2 below. Most of the site is designated General Commercial with varying densities of residential along Brannigan St reet and Gleason Drive. The EDSP assumed average development intensity for each land use designation. As summarized in Table 2 below, the EDSP anticipated development of 261 residential units and 902,563 square feet of commercial land uses on this site. Table 2. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Anticipated Development Land Use Designations Acres Res. Units Commercial s.f. General Commercial 60.3 -- 846,153 Neighborhood Commercial 3.7 -- 56,410 Medium Density Residential 4.3 43 -- Medium High Density Residential 5.3 106 -- High-Density Residential 3.2 112 -- Public/Semi-Public 3.3 -- -- Total 80.11 261 902,563 1The actual project acreage is 76.9 acres which takes into account frontage improvements and is based on gross acreage as defined by the Ge neral Plan. Gross acreage is the net site area plus 25 feet of the area of the abutting streets. To accommodate the proposed project, the Applicant proposes to simplify the six existing land use designations interspersed throughout the project site into t hree primary land use designations organized in large blocks. The proposed land use designations, and their respective Planning Areas are shown in Figure 4 below. Page 6 of 22 In addition to the changes to the land use designations, other minor amendments to the General Plan and EDSP are necessary for consistency. The amendments include modifications to the public rights-of-way, such as the vacation of Northside Drive, reduction to the width of Tassajara Road, extension of Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard and the widening of Dublin Boulevard. The City Council resolution approving the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments is included as Attachment 3. Planned Development Rezoning Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance establishes the intent, purpose and requirements of the Planned Development District. The Planned Development Ordinance contains requirements that ensure the project components will be developed as a cohesive and complementary project. The Development Plan establishes the following regulations for use of the subject property: permitted and conditionally permitted uses, development regulations, including setbacks, floor area ratio, height limits, and parking requirements, standards and design guidelines, site plan, and o ther requirements which regulate the improvement and maintenance of the property. An overview of the Planned Development Zoning District is provided below. A Site Development Review Permit will be required prior to development of each neighborhood and would be subject to Planning Commission review. Detailed design and elevation drawings would be provided at that time. Figure 5 below shows a conceptual site plan for Development Plan. The Applicant is proposing that the Planned Development Zoning District allow for a variety of retail and service uses to accommodate the proposed project as well as varying residential densities. The draft Ordinance providing the details of the proposed zoning is included as Attachment 4. Page 7 of 22 The maximum amount of development a llowed by the proposed Planned Development Zoning is 240,000 square feet of commercial uses and 566 residential units. The 240,000 square feet includes the following: • 75,000-square foot-hotel with 155 rooms; • 40,000-square-foot medical office building; and • 125,000 square feet of retail uses. Site Plan and Development Standards Planning Area 1 The Development Plan envisions PA-1 as a mixed-use area with a 240-unit multi-family residential building at the corner of Dublin Boulevard and Brannigan Street and 240,000 square feet of commercial uses on the remaining area. The area is planned for regional retail with larger buildings in the middle and along the eastern interior property line and smaller pad buildings including a fuel station and drive -thru restaurant along Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard. Access to PA-1 would be provided directly from Tassajara Road, Brannigan Street and a new signalized “T” or three-way intersection on Dublin Boulevard between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street. Brannigan Street, which is currently a private road south of Dublin Boulevard that serves the Grafton Station shopping center, would become a public street to accommodate this access as part of the project. Northside Drive, which currently extends east from Tassajara Road to the stormwater detention basin on the south side of Grafton Plaza is proposed to be vacated. The proposed signalized intersection on Dublin Boulevard would create the primary entrance. The smaller buildings along Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard are envisioned as single-story retail buildings. The larger format buildings along the eastern property line and the single building are envisioned as a hotel, office building and movie theater. The maximum height for PA-1 would be 74 feet, which is intended to accommodate the hotel. The apartment building is anticipated to be a four-story building wrapped around a parking structure, leaving the office and movie theater as the other buildings anticipated to be taller than single-story retail buildings. The parking requirement for the mix of uses would default to the requirements for each land use as stated in the Zoning Ordinance, except for the multi -family residential which is proposed to be 1.75 spaces per unit. The parking in the commercial areas is intended Page 8 of 22 to be shared by all commercial users. The residential parking garage is designed to accommodate all required resident and guest parking. Planning Area 2 PA-2 is composed of 196 one-story and two-story single-family homes and duplexes. The community would be age-restricted to those 55 years and older and includes a centrally located clubhouse. The Development Plan envisions each home to have a private, two-car garage accessed from interior alleys. One additional guest parking space would also be provided within the development. Access would be from Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street. No vehicular access from Central Parkway or Dublin Boulevard is proposed; however, a midblock pedestrian crossing on Central Parkway is proposed. This would provide direct pedestrian access between PA-2 and PA-3 to the north. Planning Areas 3 and 4 PA-3 and PA-4 are composed of 130 small-lot two-story single-family homes. Access to PA-3 would be provided off Brannigan Street and Central Parkway. Access to PA-4 would be from a single driveway on Gleason Drive. Similar to PA-2, two parking spaces for each unit would be provided within private garages; however, they would be located at the front of the home and accessed from the private street. One additional guest space would be provided either within the development or on the adjacent street. Permitted, Conditional, and Temporary Land Uses The permitted and conditionally permitted uses would vary between the different Planning Areas. An overview of the types of uses for each Planning Area is provided in Table 3 below. A complete list of uses is included in the proposed Ordinance. Page 9 of 22 Table 3. Overview of Allowed Uses Planning Area (PA) Permitted Uses Conditional Uses Temporary Uses PA-1 Offices Multi-Family Residential Restaurants Personal Services Indoor Recreation Plant Nursery Laboratory Health Services/Clinic Comedy Club Hotel/Motel Service Station Retail Theater Animal Hospital Car Wash/Detail Nightclub Repair Shop Drive Thru Arts and Crafts Fair Christmas Tree Lots Farmers’ Markets PA-2 Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Second Units Home Occupations Animal Day Care Model Home Complex PA-3 and PA-4 Single Family Residential Second Units Home Occupations Bed and Breakfast Animal Day Care Model Home Complex The complete list of uses is provided in the Planned Development Ordinance for the project site (Attachment 4). Design Theme The design theme provided in the Planned Development provides the framework for the future Site Development Review Permits. The architecture for the revised project utilizes the extensive efforts from the previous project by maintaining the same design theme which is based on clean, simple lines using natural materials and a classic color palette (see illustrative examples below). According to the Applicant, the project’s materials, landscapes, and architecture are subtle reflections of farm life, and are guided by the concept of “modern agrarian,” taking inspiration from Dublin’s agricultural past and California’s wine regions. Illustrative example of single-family residential architecture. Page 10 of 22 Illustrative examples of multi-family residential architecture. Illustrative example of commercial architecture. Page 11 of 22 Commercial Area - Tenant Design Criteria The goal of the architecture in the commercial area is to promote distinct storefronts and interesting architecture facing the public rights -of-way. In order to promote distinct storefronts in the commercial areas, the Applicant is proposing Tenant Design Criteria to be included as part of the Planned Development Zoning . The objective of the Tenant Design Criteria is to allow the maximum expression of a store’s individual personality and character while maintaining a cohesive design theme throughout t he project. The criteria allows the commercial architecture to be enhanced through an individual tenant’s brand identity and expression. Examples of the types of enhancements are architectural canopies and overhangs, decorative lighting, and artisan railin gs for outdoor seating areas. The building materials and features proposed as part of the Tenant Design Criteria were selected to provide guidance to the Site Development Review Permit and future tenants. The details of the Tenant Design Criteria are pro vided in the Planned Development Ordinance (Attachment 4). Project Phasing The project is proposed to be constructed in two phases as shown in Figure 6 and Table 4 below. The proposed phasing plan addresses the development needs of the Applicant, the interests of the City, and places the areas identified in the biological assessments as having potential wetlands into a separate phase. Although the project is divided into different phases, the Applicant anticipates that these phases would overlap with most of the construction happening concurrently. To ensure that the residential portions of the project do not wholly develop in advance of the retail/commercial portions, a restriction has been imposed that n o building permits Page 12 of 22 shall be issued for development on PA-3 or PA-4 until the improvement plans for Phase 1 and/or Phase 2 in PA-1 have been approved and bonds posted. Table 4. Phasing Plan Planning Area Land Use Designations Use Phase 1 Mixed Use Commercial and Apartments 1 1 Mixed Use Commercial 2 2 Medium Density Residential Single Family-Homes and Duplexes (Age Qualified 55+) 1 3 Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential 2 4 Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential 2 Inclusionary Zoning Pursuant to the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Chapter 8.68 of the Dublin Municipal Code), developments of more than 20 residential units are required to set aside 12.5 percent of the units in the project as affordable units. The City’s regulations also allow for exceptions commonly referred to as an “alternative method of compliance.” These exceptions include the payment of fees in lieu of constructing affordable units, construction of off-site housing projects, land dedication, etc. The proposed project requests up to 566 units, of which 71 units are required to be designated as affordable units. The 71 units are assumed to be a mix of rental units (apartments) and for-sale (single-family homes and duplexes) and are broken down in terms of affordability levels as shown in Table 5 below: Table 5. Affordable Unit Breakdown Very Low Low Moderate Total No. of Units 9 22 40 71 The project proposes to satisfy the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Regulations through various methods, which will be outlined in the Development Agreemen t. For additional detail, refer to the Development Agreement section below. Vesting Tentative Map The application includes a request for Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) Nos. 8440, 8449, and 8452 to create the individual development parcels, identify those areas that would be reserved as open and/or common space, easements to provide access through the project site, preliminary grading, drainage, stormwater management and utilities, and adjacent right-of-way improvements. The Resolution approving VTM Nos. 8440, 8449 and 8452 is included as Attachment 5. An overview of the VTM is provided below and VTM is included as Attachment 6. VTM No. 8440 pertains to the commercial area south of Dublin Boulevard in PA -1. The lotting plan creates seven individual parcels for the primary building and defines the access points from Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard, and Brannigan Street as Page 13 of 22 previously described. The vacation of Northside Drive and the extension of Brannigan Street are also included. VTM No. 8449 pertains to the age-qualified community proposed for PA-2 north of Dublin Boulevard. The lotting plan creates 196 residential parcels in addition to common area parcels for the private streets, alleys, a clubhouse, and perimeter landscape buffer. The map defines the two access points from Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street. As previously described, the layout of the neighborhood provides for access to the homes from alleys creating groups of six homes, except for 14 in -line parcels that front along Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway. VTM No. 8452 is for PA-3 and PA-4 and creates 130 residential parcels in addition to the common area parcels of the private streets, a small community park, and perimeter landscape buffer. The map defines the two access points for PA -3 on Central Parkway and Brannigan Street and the single access point off Gleason Road for PA -4. As previously described the layout of the residential parcels and the private streets provides for direct access to the two-car garage and front entry of the homes. Vacation of Northside Drive The application includes a request to vacate Northside Drive which runs along the south side of the property just north of I-580. This existing City street provides access from Tassajara Road to the existing stormwater detention basin adjacent to Grafton Plaza as well as other City facilities (i.e., culverts). The layout of PA-1 would ensure that the City would retain access through the project site to the basin and other facilities along Northside Drive east of the project site. The details regarding the Applicant’s acquisition of Northside Drive is provided in the proposed Development Agreement. Development Agreement The proposed Development Agreement is one means the City has to assure that the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan goal of new development funding the costs of infrastructure and service is met. The Development Agreement also provides security to the developer that the City will not change its zoning and other laws applicable to the project for five years. Additionally, it is a mechanism for the City to obtain commitments from the Applicant that the City might not otherwise be able to obtain. The proposed Development Agreement sets forth the terms to many items, including, but not limited to, infrastructure construction and phasing and the payment of fees. The Development Agreement becomes effective for a term of five years from the date it is recorded. The Development Agreement runs with the land and the rights thereunder can be assigned. The City Council Ordinance approving the Development Agreement and the Development Agreement itself are provided as Attachments 7 and 8, respectively. The main points of the Development Agreement are highlighted below: Affordable Housing The Development Agreement lays out the way in which the Applicant will satisfy the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. The proposed “alternative method of compliance” for the 71 affordable units includes the option of constructing 40 moderate income units on- or off-site, or through the payment of an in-lieu fee. It also includes acquisition of a 1.33-acre parcel at 6541 and 6543 Regional Street (APN: 941-150-25) from the City and dedicating the parcel to a non -profit housing developer or transferring Page 14 of 22 the right to acquire the parcel to a non -profit housing developer. In the event the City owns the parcel, the Applicant would agree to pay the City $5,000,000. Community Benefit Payment In addition to the affordable housing proposal above, the Development Agreement requires the Applicant to contribute $3,200,000 if the Applicant elects to construct the 40 moderate income units, or $3,600,000 if the Applicant elects to pay fees in lieu of constructing the units. The community benefit payment can be spent at the City Council’s discretion. Vacation of Northside Drive As part of the Development Agreement, the City agrees to vacate Northside Drive for the acquisition of the land by the Applicant at fair market value. Extension of Brannigan Street Project approval would require the Applicant to construct the extension of Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard which includes acquiring the necessary rights from the property owner. Fiscal Analysis The General Plan requires that the “fiscal impact of new residential development in the Eastern Extended Planning Area supports itself and does not draw upon and dilute the fiscal base of the remainder of the city”. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan expands upon this policy through the following Financing Goal: “New development in the Specific Plan area should pay the full cost of infrastructure needed to serve the area and should fund the costs of mitigating adverse impacts on the City’s existing infrastructure and services.” To thoroughly evaluate the fiscal impact of the proposed At Dublin project, the City engaged the services of Keyser Marston Associates (KMA) to prepare a Fiscal Analysis of the project. The Fiscal Analysis, which was updated to reflect the revised project, confirmed that the project would be fiscally neutral or better. The key findings of the analysis are summarized below. ➢ The project would annually generate approximately $1.98 million of net new tax revenues to the City’s General Fund, of which $746,000 is attributed to the residential component. ➢ The one-time construction-related revenues that would be generated by the Project are estimated to exceed $1.06 million. The Fiscal Analysis is attached to this report as Attachment 9. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLANS, AND ZONING ORDINANCE: The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as amended. The General Plan allows for a variety of residential and commercial uses in this area of Dublin which the proposed project would achieve. The General Plan encourages projects to relate well to the surrounding developments, and Page 15 of 22 the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood that includes residential, public park, commercial, and office uses. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provides design guidelines to guide development within the Specific Plan area. The proposed project would meet the intent of the guidelines and carefully integrates the development and infrastructure improvements into the existing fabric of the area. The proposed project would be consi stent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan because the Plan states that regionally oriented commercial uses should be located south of Dublin Boulevard and near freeway interchanges where convenient vehicular access will limit traffic impacts to the rest of Dublin. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provides for a mix of housing types and are strongly encouraged in the Town Center, which encompasses the area north of Dublin Boulevard. Intersection Spacing – General Plan Dublin Boulevard is classified as an arterial street in the General Plan. Arterial streets are designed to distribute localized trips. The General Plan specifies that intersections shall be spaced no closer than 750 feet, except in special circumstances, intersection spacing less than 750 feet may be allowed with the approval of the Public Works Director/City Engineer. As part of the project review, including the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the proposed intersection was evaluated for its impact to the street network as well as to public safety. The proposed intersection was modified from a full intersection to a three-way as part of the revised project and both configurations were evaluated. As a result of this review, the EIR includes a mitigation measure to address the impacts of the intersection during the peak period of traffic. The mitigation measure would restrict the movement of vehicles at the intersection out of the project site providing priority to the vehicles on Dublin Boulevard. This mitigation measure would ensure that traffic impacts to Dublin Boulevard and public safety are addressed. Based on the EIR analysis and Mitigation Measure TR-1, the impacts of the proposed intersection would be reduced to a level of less than significant. With that said, the spacing of the new intersection is not preferred, therefore it is important to evaluate the project as a whole and consider both the impacts and the benefits of its inclusion. The new intersection results in traffic impacts as detailed and addressed in the EIR, provides a greater level of connectivity between PA-1 and PA-2, and was incorporated into the application in order to meet the economic and access needs of the development. Airport Influence Area/Overlay Zoning District The majority of the site, excluding the most northerly portion, is located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA)/Overlay Zoning District. This area is designated as an area in which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety and/or airspace protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses. The AIA is a designation by the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission. All permitted and conditionally permitted uses set forth in a Planned Development Zoning District that was adopted and in effect prior to August 2012 are considered “Existing Land Uses” pursuant to the Livermore Municipal Airport ALUCP. The Alameda County ALUC has no authority over Existing Land Uses unless changes to an Existing Land Use results in an increase of nonconformity with ALUCP policies. The proposed Planned Development Zoning District does not include any new land uses beyond what was allowed in the existing Planned Development Zoning District. More specifically, the Page 16 of 22 existing and proposed Planned Development Zoning District allows a variety of residential and commercial uses, including assembly land uses such as a hotel, movie theater, and other similar uses. Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Standards and Policies The Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards document was adopted by the City Council in 1996 as a means of implementing the requirements of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Scenic Corridor policies establish standards for projects within the scenic corridor viewshed. Along the I-580 corridor, the document identified three critical viewpoints of Dublin’s “Visually Sensitive Ridgelands,” of which Viewpoint 2 looking northeast to the ridgelands from the Tassajara Road/I-580 overpass applies to the project. Viewpoint 2 requires that developments maintain generally uninterrupted views and have structures that do not extend above the horizon of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands for more than 25 percent of the total horizon line. The EIR provides a detailed analysis of the project’s impacts to the v iewpoint and finds that the proposed development (including the tallest building at 74 feet, the hotel), does not extend above the horizon of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands for more than 25 percent of the total horizon line. As shown in updated Figure 5-6: Simulation Viewpoint 5, contained in the EIR, the revised project shifts the tallest building south and would not extend above the horizon of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands for more than 25 percent of the total horizon line. Semi-Public Facilities Policy In 2004, the City Council adopted a Semi-Public Facilities Policy that requires the consideration of opportunities for cultural, education, and other community services when reviewing amendments to the land use map of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The purpose of the Semi-Public Facilities Policy, among others, was to create a greater sense of community, enrich community identify, increase public access to community services, and anticipate the needs of Dublin’s diverse community. The Policy applies to all General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments which involve 150 or more single-family housing units and/or 250 or more medium density or great units. The Policy establishes various standards which encourage, but do not require, the inclusion of a Semi-Public Facilities at a rate of one acre per 1,000 residences. The proposed project is estimated to generate a population of 1,528 persons (1.5 acres). To meet the intent of the City’s policy, the proposed project is proposing to make a cash contribution to the City as a community benefit. As provided in the Development Agreement, the amount of the cash contribution is determined on how the Applicant elects to satisfy the affordable housing requirement. The community benefit payment can be used at the City Council’s discretion. Town Center Priority Development Area The proposed project is located within the Dublin Town Center Priority Development Area (PDA). This PDA includes a mix of housing types, including single-family detached, town homes, condominiums and apartments and surrounds the commercial core for eastern Dublin. The proposed project supports the goals of the PDA through the development of residential and commercial uses. Page 17 of 22 REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES: The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, and Dublin San Ramon Services District reviewed the project and provided Conditions of Approval where appropriate to ensure that the proposed project is established in comp liance with all local Ordinances and Regulations. Conditions of Approval from these departments and agencies have been included in the attached Resolution for the Vesting Tentative Maps (Attachment 5). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The City released a Notice of Preparation for an EIR on January 17, 2018 and held a public scoping meeting on January 30, 2018. The City received four letters regarding the scope of the EIR. Subsequently, a Draft EIR (see Attachment 11) was prepared and circulated to the public for 45 days. The comment period was open from July 6, 2018 to August 20, 2018. The City received 13 comment letters during the public review and comment period. Responses have been prepared to each of the comments received by the City. The comments and associated responses together constitute the Final EIR (Attachment 12). The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared in 2018 for the previous project and, therefore, it analyzed a higher residential density and more commercial square footage than the proposed project. See Table 6 for a comparison of the maximum development evaluated in the EIR and the actual proposed development in the Planned Development and Vesting Tentative Maps. Table 6. At Dublin Proposed Development PA Use Commercial SF / No. of Units FAR/ Du/Ac EIR Project EIR Project EIR Project EIR Project 1 1 Commercial Mixed Use: Commercial & Apartments 370,000 SF 240,000 SF / 240 units .27 FAR .44 FAR 2a 2b 2c 2 Mixed Use: Commercial, Apartments, Townhomes Single-Family Residential & Duplexes 84,500 SF 500 units 196 units (AQ 55+) .65 FAR 16.53 Du/Ac 6.7 Du/Ac 3 3 Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential 180 units 130 units 7.66 Du/Ac 5.5 Du/Ac 4 4 Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential TOTAL 454,500 SF / 680 units 240,000 SF / 566 units An overview of the analysis of the EIR is provided below. The Draft EIR examined potential environmental impacts resulting from the project in the following topic areas: Page 18 of 22 • Aesthetics * • Biological Resources * • Cultural and Tribal Resources * • Geology and Soils * • Noise * • Hazards and Hazardous Materials * • Energy • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use • Population and Housing • Public Services and Utilities • Air Quality • Transportation The Draft EIR classifies the environmental impacts as follows: • Class I are significant and unavoidable. • Class II can be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. • Class III are less than significant and do not require mitigation. In summary, the Draft EIR concludes that the project will have potentially significant impact in eight of the 16 topic areas (note above with “*”) and mitigation measures have been prepared to reduce the impacts in these areas to a level that is less than significant (Class II). There were no potentially significant impacts identified for the six topics areas (underlined above) and, therefore, no mitigation is required (Class III). Similar to other infill projects of this size, impacts were identified where, even with the implementation of mitigation measures, the effects to the environment would still be expected to be significant (Class I). The identified impacts, noted in italics above, are related to air quality and transportation. Although mitigation measures were prepared to reduce the level of the impact, the impacts could not be fully reduced to less than significant in all instances. An overview of all the topic areas is provided below. Aesthetics To address potential aesthetic impacts associated with the project, simulations from five viewpoints were prepared and compared to existing conditions. The EIR concluded that the project would not adversely impact views from a scenic vista or substantially alter the existing visual character because the building heights, massing and materials are generally consistent with the surrounding land uses. Potential impacts associated with light and glare were identified. The Draft EIR identifies a mitigation measure to reduce the impact to a level of less than significant. Page 19 of 22 Air Quality The Draft EIR identifies potentially significant impacts to air quality and includes mitigation measures. Although mitigation measures were prepared to reduce the level of the impact, the impacts could not be fully reduced to less than significant in all instances. The project’s cumulative impact would exceed the air quality thresholds established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for nitrogen oxides (Nox) and reactive organic gases (ROG) emissions. The predominant source of NOx emissions would be mobile sources (i.e., project generated vehicle trips). Biological Resources The project site contains approximately 77 acres of non-sensitive ruderal habitat composed primarily of disced and mowed areas of disturbed vegetation. These biological communities are not considered sensitive natural communities or riparian habitat. The Draft EIR identifies other biological resources such as wetlands and special status species (e.g., Congdon tarplant, saline clover, burrowing owl, etc.) that would be impacted by the project and, therefore, identifies mitigation measures to reduce the project’s impact on these biological resources to a level of less than significant. Cultural and Tribal Resources The project site is not listed as a historic site or a tribal resource. Nonetheless, there is always the possibility that previously unknown historic resources exist below the ground surface within the project site. As such, development of the project site was determined to have a potentially significant impact. The Draft EIR identifies mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a level of less than significant. Energy There were no potentially significant impacts identified for energy and, therefore, no mitigation is required. Geology and Soils Geologic-related impacts from development are site-specific and, if properly designed, would not result in worsening of the environment or public health and safety impacts. As part of the building permit application, the Applicant is required to submit a design -level geotechnical report. This report would provide recommendations on the appropriate level of soil engineering and building design necessary to minimize ground -shaking hazards. The Draft EIR builds off these existing requirements and requires the Applicant to submit a design-level geotechnical report to the City of Dublin for review and approval and implement recommendations under the approved report. The implementation of this mitigation measure would ensure that the project impacts would be less than significant. Greenhouse Gas Emissions There were no potentially significant impacts identified for greenhouse gas emissions and, therefore, no mitigation is required. Hazards and Hazardous Materials As previously noted, the project site is vacant except for seasonal uses. The Draft EIR identified a limited amount of hazardous materials on the project site, including two five - gallon buckets of petroleum hydrocarbon, stained soils, and solid waste debris. As such Page 20 of 22 the Draft EIR identified a mitigation measure to reduce this impact to less than significant. Hydrology There were no potentially significant impacts identified for hydrology and, therefore, no mitigation is required. Projects, such as the proposed project, involving construction on sites that are one acre or more are required by regulation to prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that specifies how the discharger will protect water quality during construction activities Land Use There were no potentially significant impacts identified for land use and, therefore, no mitigation is required. Noise The Draft EIR identified potentially significant noise impacts related to project construction in the short term as well as longer-term noise exposure of future residents by mobile traffic noise from the adjacent City streets. Similar to other projects in the City where noise barriers such as patio enclosures and walls are incorporated into the project design, the proposed project would incorporate these features based on a future acoustical study as part of the Site Development Review Permit. Residential neighborhoods adjacent to the project site along Tassajara Road and Gleason Drive are designed with masonry walls along the project frontage to reduce noise impacts on the residents as well as provide an enhanced aesthetic to the street frontage. Accordingly, the Draft EIR identifies mitigation measures, including the regulation of construction equipment and the requirement for an acoustical study demonstrating all residential units would meet the City’s noise standards. These mitigation measures would reduce the project noise impacts to a level of less than significant. Population and Housing There were no potentially significant impacts identified for population and housing and, therefore, no mitigation is required. Public Services and Utilities There were no potentially significant impacts identified for public services and utilities and, therefore, no mitigation is required. Transportation The project’s vehicle trip generation would result in impacts to the existing street network as well as the new signalized intersection on Dublin Boulevard. To address the impacts to existing intersections, mitigation measures are proposed that require the Applicant to pay the project’s proportionate fair share of the improvements. These improvements vary by intersection and include such things as adjusting signal timing, ramp metering rates, and additional turn lanes. For the new signalize d intersection on Dublin Boulevard, Mitigation Measure TR-1:1 restricts left turn movements during peak time periods. Page 21 of 22 Public Comments on Final EIR The At Dublin Final EIR was published on October 24, 2018. Prior to the October 30, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, the City received additional comment letters regarding the EIR. These comments were reviewed, and it was determined that no new and/or substantial information was presented that was not previously evaluated per the City’s CEQA significance thresholds. Although responses to these comments are not required under CEQA, it is important to acknowledge them. As a result, minor changes to Mitigation Measures BIO-1.1, BIO-1.2 and BIO-1.3 and Impact BIO-6 were made. The minor changes are included as Attachment 13. Errata for Revised Project As previously noted, in October 2019, the Applicant submitted a revised project based on comments from the community. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, the City analyzed the revised project and determined that there was no new significant information or new significant environmental impact as a result of the revised project. The City prepared an Errata to the EIR to this effect which is included as Attachment 14. The City Council resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report is included as Attachment 10. In order to approve the project, the City Council must make findings regarding significant impacts and mitigation measures (Attachment 15), findings concerning infeasibility of alternatives and potential additional mitigation measures (Attachment 16) and will need to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) (Attachment 17) that identifies all environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated and explains why the benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable environmental impacts. The SOC is required in order to approve the project, if desired by a majority of the City Council. 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 project site. A public notice was also provided to an expanded area beyond 300 feet, to surrounding residents and businesses including the following neighboring communities: The Cottages, The Villas, The Courtyards, Sorrento West, Sonata, a portion of Tassajara Meadows, Grafton Station, and the Waterford residential and commercial developments, and to interested parties. A public notice also was published in the East Bay Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. A Planning Application sign was posted on the project site and the project was also included on the City’s development projects webpage. A copy of this Staff Report has been provided to the Applicant. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-05 2. Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2020 3. Resolution Approving General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments 4. Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map and Approving a Planned Development District 5. Resolution Approving Vesting Tentative Maps 6. Exhibit A to the Resolution - Vesting Tentative Map 7. Ordinance Adopting Development Agreement Page 22 of 22 8. Exhibit A to the Ordinance - Development Agreement 9. Fiscal Analysis 10. Resolution Certifying Final EIR 11. Exhibit A to the Resolution - Draft EIR 12. Exhibit B to the Resollution - Final EIR 13. Exhibit C to the Resolution - Minor Changes to EIR 14. Exhibit D to the Resolution - EIR Errata January 2020 15. Exhibit E to the Resolution - Findings Mitigation Measures 16. Exhibit F to the Resolution - Findings Alternatives 17. Exhibit G to the Resolution - Statement of Overriding Considerations 18. Exhibit H to the Resolution - MMRP 19. Public Comment RESOLUTION NO. 20-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY THE AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE AT DUBLIN PROJECT PLPA 2017-00061 (APNS 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, AND 985-0052-025) WHEREAS, the Applicant, Shea Properties in partnership with SCS Development Company, is requesting a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and Vesting Tentative Maps for the At Dublin project. The proposed project includes up to 566 residential units comprised of apartments, detached small-lot single-family homes and 55 and older age restricted single-family homes, up to 240,000 square feet of retail commercial development, and related infrastructure and landscape improvements. Requested land u se approvals include a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezoning (Stage 1 and Stage 2), Vesting Tentative Map Nos. 8440, 8449 and 8452, a Street Vacation and a Development Agreement, among other related actions. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the “At Dublin Project” or the “Project;” and WHEREAS, the Project site is approximately 76.9 acres generally bound by Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive, Brannigan Street and I -580 (APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985- 0051-006, 985-0052-024, and 985-0052-025); and WHEREAS, the existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations for the project site are Neighborhood Commercial, General Commercial, Medium Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential, High Density Residential, and Public/Semi-Public; and WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to simplify the six existing land use designations interspersed throughout the project site to the following land use designations organized in large blocks of Mixed Use, Medium Density Residential and Single-Family Residential. In addition, other amendments to the provisions of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are proposed to ensure consistency with the new land use designations for the project site; and WHEREAS, the Project site is located within the Dublin Town Center Priority Development Area (PDA) which includes a mix of housing types including single-family detached, town homes, condominiums and apartments. The Town Center PDA is envisioned as a walkable area with locally serving businesses within walking distance or a short ride from residential neighborhoods, conveniently served by transit; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did not take action on the Environmental Impact Report as projects that are denied are exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(4) of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated February 25, 2020, and incorporated herein by reference, was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission recommending approval of the project including the General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Planned Development Rezoning with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, Vesting Tentative Map Nos. 8440, 8449 and 8452, Street Vacation, Development Agreement and certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report, for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, on February 25, 2020, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Final EIR, all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the At Dublin project based on traffic impacts, pedestrian and bicycle concerns, and the Project’s inconsistency with the longstanding vision for these parcels, namely less housing and more commercial/retail serving as a “town center” and “gateway to the city” with a walkable environment. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 25th day of February 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Kothari, Wright, Benson NOES: Thalblum, Grier ABSENT: Mittan ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: ______________________________ Assistant Community Development Director PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Tuesday, February 25, 2020 Planning Commission February 25, 2020 Regular Meeting Page | 1 A Regular Meeting of the Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 25, 2020, in the Council Chamber. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM, by Commission Chairperson Thalblum. 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance Attendee Name Title Status Janine Thalblum Planning Commission Chair Present Dawn Benson Planning Commission Vice Chair Present Amit Kothari Planning Commissioner Present Scott Mittan Planning Commissioner Absent Stephen Wright Planning Commissioner Present Catheryn Grier Alternate Planning Commissioner Present Dawn Plants Alternate Planning Commissioner Present 2. Oral Communications 2.1. Public Comment Shirley Lewandowski, Dublin Resident, provided public comment. Michael Urueta, Dublin Resident, provided public comment. 3. Consent Calendar 3.1. Approve the Minutes of the February 11, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVED BY: Stephen Wright SECOND: Amit Kothari AYES: Janine Thalblum, Dawn Benson, Catheryn Grier 4. Written Communication - None. 5. Public Hearing 5.1 At Dublin Project (PLPA-2017-00061) Amy Million, Principal Planner, made a presentation. Planning Commission February 25, 2020 Regular Meeting Page | 2 Commission Chairperson Thalblum opened the public hearing. Kevin Fryer, representing SCS Development, made a presentation. Kevin McCook, Vice President of Development with Shea Properties, made a presentation. Dave Wolfgram, representing Amy’s Drive Thru, made a presentation. Carl Cox, Owner of Cox Family Stores, made a presentation. Kevin Fryer, representing SCS Development, summarized his presentation, and responded to questions posed by the Commission. Kevin McCook, Vice President of Development with Shea Properties, responded to questions posed by the Commission. Amy Million, Principal Planner, responded to questions by the Commission. Obaid Khan, Transportation and Operations Manager, responded to questions posed by the Commission. Kevin Fryer, representing SCS Development, responded to follow up questions by the Commission. Kevin McCook, Vice President of Development with Shea Properties, responded to follow up questions by the Commission. Elliott Edge, Dublin Resident, provided public comment. Michael Urueta, Dublin Resident, provided public comment. Paige Fennie, representing the Laborer’s International Union of North America Local Union 304, provided public comment. Shirley Lewandowski, Dublin Resident, provided public comment. Danita Romero, Dublin Chamber of Commerce, provided public comment. Leonard Nieto, Dublin Resident, provided public comment. Jennet Herdman, Dublin Resident, provided public comment. Inge Houston, Dublin Chamber of Commerce, provided public comment. Planning Commission February 25, 2020 Regular Meeting Page | 3 Nima Moorjani, Dublin Resident, provided public comment. Commission Chairperson Thalblum closed the public hearing. Amy Million, Principal Planner, responded to follow up questions by the Commission. Jordyn Bishop, City Attorney, responded to questions posed by the Commission. Kristie Wheeler, Assistant Community Development Director, responded to questions posed by the Commission. On a motion by Commissioner Wright, seconded by Commissioner Kothari, the Planning Commission took the following action: RESOLUTION NO. 20-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY THE AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE ENTIRETY OF THE AT DUBLIN PROJECT PLPA 2017-00061 (APNS 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, AND 985-0052-025) RESULT: DENIED [3-2 VOTE] MOVED BY: Stephen Wright SECOND: Amit Kothari AYES: Stephen Wright, Dawn Benson, Amit Kothari, NOES: Janine Thalblum, Catheryn Grier 6. Unfinished Business - None. 7. New Business – None. 8. Other Business Kristie Wheeler, Assistant Community Development Director, informed the Commission that the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 10, 2020. Kristie Wheeler, Assistant Community Development Director, informed the Commissioners attending the League of California Cities Annual Planning Planning Commission February 25, 2020 Regular Meeting Page | 4 Commissioners Academy that they received a packet containing their reservation information. 9. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by Commission Chairperson Thalblum at 9:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Kristie Wheeler Assistant Community Development Director 1 RESOLUTION NO. xx-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN RELATED TO THE AT DUBLIN PROJECT PLPA 2017-00061 (APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, AND 985-0052-025) WHEREAS, the Applicant, Shea Properties in partnership with SCS Development Company, is requesting a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for the At Dublin Project. The proposed Project includes up to 566 residential units comprised of apartments, detached small-lot single-family homes and 55 and older age restricted single-family homes, up to 240,000 square feet of retail commercial devel opment, and related infrastructure and landscape improvements. Requested land use approvals include a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezoning (Stage 1 and Stage 2), Vesting Tentative Maps, a Street Vacation, and a Development Agreement, among other related actions. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the “At Dublin Project” or the “Project ;” and WHEREAS, the Project site is 76.9 acres generally bound by Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive, Brannigan Street and I-580 (APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985- 0052-024, and 985-0052-025); and WHEREAS, the existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations for the Project site are Neighborhood Commercial, General Commercial, Medium Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential, High Density Residential, and Public/Semi-Public; and WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to simplify the six existing land use designations interspersed throughout the Project site to the following land use designations organized in large blocks of Mixed Use, Medium Density Residential and Single Family Residential. In addition, other amendments to the provisions of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are proposed to ensure consistency with the new land use designations for the Project site; and WHEREAS, the Project site is located within the Dublin Town Center Priority Development Area (PDA) which includes a mix of housing types including single -family detached, townhomes, condominiums and apartments. The Town Center PDA is envisioned as a walkable area with locally serving businesses within walking dista nce or a short ride from residential neighborhoods, conveniently served by transit; 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 City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated July 2018, a Final EIR dated October 2018, and an 2 Errata dated January 2020, for the proposed Project, which reflected the City’s independent judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR identified potentially significant environmental effects anticipated as a result of the Project such as, aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, a nd transportation, most of which can be substantially reduced through mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was circulated for 45 days for public comment from July 6, 2018 to August 20, 2018; and WHEREAS, comments received on the Draft EIR were reviewed and responded to, and the Final EIR (that contains the Response to Comments) dated October 2018 was prepared; and WHEREAS, following a public hearing on October 30, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 18-24, recommending denial of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments and the entirety of the Project, consisting of up to 665 residential units comprised of apartments, townhomes and detached small-lot single family homes and up to 400,500 sf of commercial, related infrastructure, a public park and landscape improvements, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, on November 20, 2018, following a request from the Applicant, the City Council continued the Project to an undetermined future date; and WHEREAS, in October 2019, the Applicant submitted a revised Project in response to public comments, consisting of up to 566 residential units comprised of apartments, detached small-lot single family homes and 55 and older age restricted single-family homes, up to 240,000 square feet of retail commercial development, and related infrastructure and landscape improvements; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, the City analyzed the revised Project and determined that there was no new significant information, or substantially more severe, significant environmental impact as a result of the revised Project, requiring recirculation of the EIR; and WHEREAS, consistent with Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the City obtained a contact list of local Native American tribes from the Native American Heritage Commission and notified the tribes on the contact list of the opportunity to consult with the City on the proposed General Plan Amendment. None of the contacted tribes requested a consultation within the 90-day statutory consultation period and no further action is required; and WHEREAS, following a public hearing on February 25, 2020, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 20-05, recommending denial of the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the At Dublin project based on traffic impacts, pedestrian and bicycle concerns, and the Project’s inconsistency with the longstanding vision for these parcels, namely less housing and more commercial/retail serving as a “town 3 center” and “gateway to the city” with a walkable environment, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated June 16, 2020 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Planned Development Rezoning and related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Map Nos. 8440, 8449 and 8452, a Street Vacation, a Development Agreement and certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report, for the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, including the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, on June 16, 2020 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, on June 16, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. xx-20 certifying the At Dublin Final EIR and adopting CEQA findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds that the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, as set forth below, are in the public interest, will promote general health, safety and welfare, and that the General Plan as amended will remain internally consistent. The proposed Project is consistent with the guiding and implementing policies of the General Plan in each of the elements and will allow for a mixed-use development consisting of both residential and commercial uses. The General Plan Amendments noted below will ensure that the implementation of the proposed Project is in compliance with the General Plan and that each element within the General Plan is internally consistent. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following amendments to the General Plan: Figure 1-1 (Dublin General Plan Land Use Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the Project site and shall be amended with a new land use designations for the Project site as shown below: 4 Figure 2-1 (Dublin General Plan Sites for Housing Development Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the Project site. Figure 2-2 (Dublin General Plan Open Space Initiative Protection Areas Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the Project site. Table 2.2 (Land Use Development Potential: Eastern Extended Planning Area) shall be amended to read as follows: Table 2.2. LAND USEDEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL: EASTERN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA ACRES INTENSITY UNITS1 FACTOR YIELD1 CLASSIFICATION ACRES INTENSITY UNITS1 FACTOR YIELD1 RESIDENTIAL Acres Dwelling Units/Acre Dwelling Units Persons/ Dwelling Unit Population High Density 52.94 25 .1+ 1,329+ 2 .7 3,588+ Medium-High Density 132.51 14 .1-25 .0 1,868-3,313 2 .7 5,045-8,944 Medium-High Density and Retail Office 0 14 .1-25 .0 0 2 .7 0 Medium-Density 430.5 6 .1-14 .0 2,626-6,027 2 .7 7,090-16,273 Single Family 748.8 0 .9-6 .0 674-4,493 2 .7 1,820-12,131 Estate Residential 30 .5 0 .01-0 .8 0-24 2 .7 0-65 Rural Residential/ Agriculture 329.8 0 .01 3 2 .7 9 TOTAL: 1,707.05 6,500-15,189+ 17,552 -41,010+ COMMERCIAL Acres Floor Area Ratio (Gross) Square Feet (millions) Square Feet/ Employee Jobs General Commercial 238.8 .20- .60 2 .1-6.86 510 4,079-12,238 General Commercial/ Campus Office 95 .22 .20- .80 .83-3 .32 385 2,155-7,325 Mixed Use 30.4 .30-1 .00 .40-1.3 490 811-2,702 Mixed Use 2/ Campus Office 22 .9 .45 max .45 260 1,731 Neighborhood Commercial 17.59 .25- .60 .19- .46 490 391-938 Campus Office 195 .58 .25- .80 2 .13-6 .82 260 8,192-26,214 Industrial Park 56 .4 .35 max .86 590 1,458 Industrial Park/ Campus Office 0 .25- .35 0 425 0 Campus Office 137.58 .25- .80 1.50-4.79 260 5,763-18,440 Medical Campus 42.88 .25- .80 .46-4.49 260 1,796-5,747 Medical Campus / Commercial 15.85 .25- .80 .17-.41 510 338-812 TOTAL: 853.2 9.09 -29.76 26,714 -77,605 5 PUBLIC/SEMI- PUBLIC/OPEN SPACE Acres Floor Area Ratio (Gross) Square Feet (millions) Square Feet/ Employee Jobs Public/Semi-Public 94.5 .50 max 2 .16 590 3,488 Semi-Public 1.3 .50 max .03 590 48 Acres Number Parks/Public Recreation 207.13 Regional Parks 1 .2 1 Open Space 699 .56 Schools Acres Floor Area Ratio (Gross) Square Feet (millions) Square Feet/ Employee Jobs Elementary School 38 .50 max 1 .06 590 1,797 Middle School 27 .8 .50 max .61 590 1,034 High School 0 TOTAL: 1,069.49 4.86 6,367 Acres Dwelling Units Population Square Feet (millions) Jobs GRAND TOTAL: 3,629.74 6,500-15,189+ 17,552 -41,010+ 9.16 -29.42 33,081-83,972 Figure 3-1 (Dublin General Plan Parks and Open Space Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the Project site. Figure 4-1 (Dublin General Plan Schools and Public Lands Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the Project site. Figure 5-1 (Dublin General Plan Roadway Classifications) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard as a Collector Street and removal of Northside Drive through the Project site. Table 5.1 (Roadway Improvements at General Plan Buildout (Year 2035)) shall be amended to modify Tassajara Road and add Dublin Boulevard as follows with text that is proposed to be deleted from the General Plan shown in strikethrough and text that is proposed to be added to the General Plan shown in underline: ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT DESCRIPTION Tassajara Road Widening Widening of Tassajara Road to eight seven lanes between Dublin Boulevard and I-580 westbound ramps. Dublin Boulevard Widening Widening of Dublin Boulevard to seven lanes between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street Figure 5-2a (Dublin General Plan Transit Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard as a Collector Street and removal of Northside Drive through the Project site. 6 Figure 5-3b (Dublin General Plan Bicycle Circulation Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard as a Collector Street and removal of Northside Drive through the Project site. Figure 5-4b (Dublin General Plan Multi-Modal Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard as a Collector Street and removal of Northside Drive through the Project site. Figure 8-1 (Dublin General Plan Geologic Hazards and Constraints Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the Project site. Figure 8-2 (Dublin General Plan Potential Flooding Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the Project site. Figure 9-1 (Dublin General Plan 2011 Existing Noise Exposure Contours Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the Project site. Figure 9-2 (Dublin General Plan 2035 Projected Noise Exposure Contours Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the Project site. Figure 10-1 (Dublin General Plan Regional Corridors Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the Project site. Figure 10-2 (Dublin General Plan Gateways Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the Project site. Figure 10-5 (Dublin General Plan Villages Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the Project site. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following amendments to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan: Figure 2.4 Ownership Patterns shall be amended to update the land ownership of 18. Dublin Land Company to SCS Development Company Table 4.1 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary) shall be amended to read as follows with no modifications to the footnotes: TABLE 4.1 EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE SUMMARY (Amendment Reso# 66-03, 47-04, 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 210-08, 176-09, 76-10, 55-12, 92-12, 210-12, 198-13, 159-14, 101- 15, 165-15, 151-16, xx-20) Land Use Description LAND AREA DENSITY YIELD COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL General Commercial 296.5 acres .25-.35 FAR 3.87 MSF General Commercial/Campus Office 87.02 acres .28 FAR 1.054 MSF Industrial Park* 61.3 acres .25-.28 FAR .747 MSF Neighborhood Commercial 54.19 acres .30-.35 FAR .767 MSF Mixed Use 23.7 acres .30-1.0 FAR .773 MSF 7 Mixed Use 2/Campus Office**** 25.33 .45 FAR .497 MSF Campus Office 94.28 acres .35-.75 FAR 1.840 MSF Medical Campus 42.88 acres .25-.80 FAR .950 MSF Medical Campus/Commercial 15.85 acres .25-.60 FAR .250 MSF Subtotal 716.45 acres 10.748 MSF RESIDENTIAL High Density 55.54 acres 35 du/ac 1,944 du Medium High Density 151.31 acres 20 du/ac 3,026 du Medium Density** 522.11 acres (1) 10 du/ac 5,221 du Single Family*** 971.05 acres 4 du/ac 3,884.2 du (3) Estate Residential 30.4 acres 0.13 du/ac 4 du Rural Residential/Agric. 539.55 acres .01 du/ac 5 du Mixed Use 0 acres 15du/ac 240 du Subtotal 2,269.82 acres 14,324 du PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC Public/Semi-Public 96.8 acres .24 FAR .973 MSF Semi-Public 8.6 acres .25 FAR .114 MSF Subtotal 105.4 acres 1.087 MSF SCHOOLS Elementary School 55.8 acres (2) 5 schools Junior High School 21.3 acres 1 school Subtotal 77.1 acres PARKS AND OPEN SPACE City Park 56.3 acres 1 park Community Park 93.3 acres 3 parks Neighborhood Park 50.9 acres 7 parks Neighborhood Square 16.7 acres 6 parks Natural Community Park 10.4 acres 1 park Subtotal 227.6 acres 18 parks Open Space 684.06 acres TOTAL LAND AREA 4,034.77 acres Table 4.2 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Population and Employment Summary) shall be amended to read as follows with no modifications to the footnotes: TABLE 4.2 EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY (Amended Per Resolution No. 47-04, 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 176-09, 76-10, 55-12, 92-12, 210-12, 198-13, 159-14, 165-15, 151- 16, xx-20) Land Use Designation Development Sq Ft/Employees Persons/du Population Commercial Industrial Park .747 MSF 590 1,266 General Commercial/Campus Office* 1.054 MSF 385 2,738 General Commercial 3.87 MSF 510 6,567 Neighborhood Commercial .767 MSF 490 1,565 Mixed Use** .436 MSF 490 1,369 Mixed Use 2/Campus Office**** .497 MSF 260 1,910 Campus Office 1.840 MSF 260 7,077 8 Table 4.3 (City of Dublin Projected Jobs/Housing Balance) shall be amended to read as follows with no modifications to the footnotes: TABLE 4.3 CITY OF DUBLIN PROJECTED JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE (Amended Per Resolution No. 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 76-10, 55-12, 92-12, 210-12, 198-13, 159-14, xx-20) PLANNING AREA Dwelling Units Jobs Employed Residents* Balance** Ratio*** Existing City of Dublin**** 7,100 12,210 11,502 -708 1.06:1.0 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area 14,572***** 24,451 23,607 -844 1.04:1.0 TOTAL: 21,672 36,661 35,109 -1,552 1.04:1.0****** Table 4.4 (Tassajara Gateway Subarea Development Potential) shall be amended as follows: TABLE 4.4 TASSAJARA GATEWAY SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (Amended Per Resolution No. 76-10, 151-16, xx-20) Designation Acres Density Development Potential General Commercial 29 .25 FAR .316 msf General Commercial/Campus Office 10.5 .28 FAR .128 msf Campus Office 33.28 .35 FAR .507msf Medical Campus/Commercial 15.85 .36 FAR .249 msf Mixed Use 23.7 .65 FAR .671 msf Open Space 6.9 ----- ----- Semi Public ---- ---- 0 TOTAL 122.83 ----- 1.973 msf Medical Campus .950 260 3,654 Medical Campus/ Commercial .250 510 490 Public/Semi Public .973 MSF 590 1,656 Semi-Public 0.94 MSF 590 159 TOTAL: 12.324 MSF 24,451 Residential High Density 1,944 2.0 3,888 Medium High Density 3,274 2.0 6,548 Medium Density 5,221 2.0 10,442 Single Family***(1) 3,884 3.2 12,423 Estate Residential 4 3.2 13 Mixed Use** 240 2.0 480 Rural Residential/Agric. 5 3.2 16 TOTAL: 14,572 33,810 9 Section 4.4.1 (Location and Diversity) shall be amended to update the acres of residential classification and dwelling units as follows: The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designates 2,225.26 acres with a wide range of residential classifications and densities, resulting in development potential for approximately 14,572 dwelling units. Approximately 55 percent of the units will be single family (densities of 0.01 to 10 du/ac). Table 4.5 (Town-Center-Commercial Subarea Development Potential) shall be amended as follows: Table 4.6 (Town Center-Residential Subarea Development Potential) shall be amended as follows: TABLE 4.6 TOWN CENTER-- RESIDENTIAL SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Designation Acres Density Development Potential High Density 30.4 35 du/ac 1,064 du Medium High Density 39.6 20 du/ac 792 du Medium Density 206.2 10 du/ac 2,062 du Single Family 114.2 4 du/ac 456 du Subtotal 390.4 --- 4,374 du Open Space 49.8 --- City Park 56.3 --- 1 park Community Park 80.6 --- 1 park Neighborhood Park 11.6 --- 2 parks Neighborhood Square 7.5 --- 5 parks Nature Park 10.4 --- 1 park Semi-Public --- --- 0 msf Subtotal 216.2 --- Elementary School 31.1 --- 3 schools TOTAL 606.6 --- 43,674 dwelling units 10 parks 3 elementary schools Figure 4.1 (Land Use Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard as a Collector Street and remove Northside Drive through the Project site and shall be amended with new TABLE 4.5 TOWN CENTER -- COMMERCIAL SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (Amended Per Resolution No. 47-04, xx-20) Designation Acres Density Development Potential General Commercial 32.4 .35 FAR .494 msf Neighborhood Commercial 28.0 .35 FAR .427 msf Public/Semi-Public 3.9 .25 FAR .043 msf Semi-Public -- -- 0 msf TOTAL 64.3 --- 1.064 msf 10 land use designations for the Project site as noted below. Figure 4.2 (Planning Subareas Map) shall be amended as shown on the image below as follows: 1) Modify to the boundary of Tassajara Gateway Subarea (Area A) to include the 1.2-acre parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number 985-0051-004-00 shown in green) located east of Tassajara Road and west of Northside Drive included into Tassajara Gateway subarea 2) Modify the boundary of Town Center-Residential (Area C) (shown in orange) to occupy the entirety of the Project site north of Dublin Boulevard. 3) Modify the boundary of Town Center-Commercial (Area B) to coincide with the western and eastern boundary of the new boundary of Town Center-Residential (Area C). 4) Show Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard as a Collector Street and remove Northside Drive through the Project site Figure 5.1 (Road System Map) shall be amended to show Tassajara Road between Dublin Boulevard and I-580 ramps to be seven lanes and Dublin Boulevard between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street to be seven lanes. Figure 5-3b (East Dublin Bicycle Circulation System Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard and remove Northside Drive through the Project site APPENDIX 3 Land Use Summary by Planning Areas sections “Tassajara Gateway”, “Town Center-Commercial”, and “Town Center-Residential” shall be amended as follows: APPENDIX 3 EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE SUMMARY BY PLANNING SUBAREAS Planning Subareas Land Use Category Area Density Square Feet Units Tassajara Gateway General Commercial 29 .25 315,810 11 General Commercial/ Campus Office 10.5 0.28 128,066 Campus Office 33.28 .35 507,387 Medical Campus/ Commercial 15.85 .36 248,553 Mixed Use 23.7 .65 671,042 240 Open Space 6.9 Total 119.23 1,870,858 240 Town Center - Commercial General Commercial 32.4 .35 193,970 Neighborhood Commercial 28.0 .35 426,888 Public/Semi-Public 3.9 .25 42,471 Total 64.3 663,329 Town Center – Residential High Density Residential 30.4 35 1,064 Medium High Density Residential 53.3 20 1,066 Medium Density Residential 206.2 10 2,062 Single Family Residential 114.2 4 456 Subtotal 381.1 4,374 Open Space 49.8 City Park 56.3 Community Park 80.6 Neighborhood Park 11.6 Neighborhood Square 7.5 Nature Community Park 10.4 Subtotal 216.2 Elementary School 31.1 Total 606.6 4,614 APPENDIX 4 Appendix 4 Land Use Summary by Land Owners “#18 Dublin Land Company” shall be amended to read as follows: APPENDIX 4 EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE SUMMARY BY LAND OWNERS Owner/Land Use Category Acres Density Square Feet Units #18 SCS DEVELOPMENT CO. 12 Mixed Use 23.7 .30 – 1.00 309,712 – 1,032,372 240 Medium Density Residential 29.4 6.1 – 14.0 - 179-412 Single Family Residential 23.8 .9 – 6.0 - 24-143 Total 76.9 309,712 – 1,032,372 443-795 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of June, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ City Clerk 1 ORDINANCE NO. xx – 20 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * * * * * * AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT WITH RELATED A STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE AT DUBLIN PROJECT PLPA 2017-00061 (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, Shea Properties in partnership with SCS Development Company , is requesting Planned Development Rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan. The proposed Project includes up to 566 residential units comprised of apartments, detached single-family homes and 55 and older age restricted single-family homes, up to 240,000 square feet of retail commercial development, and related infrastructure and landscape improvements. Requested land use approvals include General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezoning (Stage 1 and Stage 2), Vesting Tentative Map Nos. 8440, 8449 and 8452, a Street Vacation, and a Development Agreement, among other related actions. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the “At Dublin Project” or the “Project;” and B. The Project site is approximately 76.9 acres generally bounded by Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive, Brannigan Street and I-580 (APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985- 0051-006, 985-0052-024, and 985-0052-025); and C. The Project site is located within the Dublin Town Center Priority Development Area (PDA) which includes a mix of housing types including single-family detached, townhomes, condominiums and apartments. The Town Center PDA is envisioned as a walkable area with locally serving businesses within walking distance or a short ride from residential neighborhoods, conveniently served by transit; and D. Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated July 2018, a Final EIR dated October 2018, and an Errata dated January 2020, for the proposed Project, which reflected the City’s independent judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and E. The Draft EIR identified potentially significant environmental effects anticipated as a result of the Project such as, aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and transportation, most of which can be substantially reduced through mitigation measures; and F. The Draft EIR was circulated for 45 days for public comment from July 6, 2018 to August 20, 2018. Comments received on the Draft EIR were reviewed and responded to, and the 2 Final EIR (that contains the Response to Comments) dated October 2018 was prepared; and G.Following a public hearing on October 30, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 18-24, recommending denial of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments and the entirety of the Project, consisting of up to 665 residential units comprised of apartments, townhomes and detached small-lot single family homes and up to 400,500 square feet of commercial development, related infrastructure, a public park and landscape improvements, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and H.On November 20, 2018, following a request from the Applicant, the City Council continued the Project to an undetermined future date; and I.In October 2019, the Applicant submitted a revised Project in response to public comments, consisting of up to 566 residential units comprised of apartments, detached small-lot single-family homes and 55 and older age restricted single-family homes, up to 240,000 square feet of retail commercial development, and related infrastructure and landscape improvements; and J.Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, the City analyzed the revised Project and determined that there was no new significant information, or substantially more severe, significant environmental impact as a result of the revised Project, requiring recirculation of the EIR; and K.Following a public hearing on February 25, 2020, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 20-05, recommending denial of the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the At Dublin project based on traffic impacts, pedestrian and bicycle concerns, and the Project’s inconsistency with the longstanding vision for these parcels, namely less housing and more commercial/retail serving as a “town center” and “gateway to the city” with a walkable environment, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and L.A Staff Report dated June 16, 2020 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the Planned Development Rezoning and related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, for the City Council; and M.The City Council considered the Final EIR and related prior CEQA documents, including an Errata prepared for the revised Project, and all above referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony prior to taking action on the Project; and N.On June 16, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. xx-20 certifying the Final EIR and adopting mitigation findings, findings regarding alternatives, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project; and O.On June 16, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. xx-20 approving General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours. 3 SECTION 2: FINDINGS A.Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1.The At Dublin Project (“the Project”) PD-Planned Development zoning meets the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 in that it provides a comprehensive development plan that will be consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as amended and protects the integrity and character of the area by creating a desirable use of land that is sensitive to surrounding land uses by virtue of the layout and design of the site plan. The Project places residents and employment uses in areas planned for such uses, which promote preservation of sensitive environmenta l areas, throughout the City. The development plan focuses commercial uses south of Dublin Boulevard adjacent to I-580 and provides for a variety of housing opportunities, north of Dublin Boulevard adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods. As a result, the development plan creates a more desirable use of the land, a more coherent and coordinated development, and a better physical environment than would otherwise be possible under a single zoning district or combination of zoning districts. 2.Development of the Project under the PD-Planned Development zoning will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding area in that the site will provide a mix of housing types including apartments, single- family detached homes and single-family duplexes as well as a variety of neighborhood and regional-serving commercial uses. The Project site is in an area that has similar uses nearby including residential uses to the west, north and east, commercial to the east and west, and a large public park to the west. B.Pursuant to Sections 8.120.050.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1.The PD-Planned Development zoning for the Project will be harmonious and compatible with existing and potential development in the surrounding area in that the proposed Site Plan has taken into account adjacent land uses and will provide a wide range of amenities to and for the community within the development and the surrounding neighborhoods. 2.The Project site conditions were documented in the EIR that has been prepared, and the environmental impacts that have been identified will be mitigated to the greatest degree possible. There are no site challenges that were identified in the EIR, which could not be mitigated, that will present an impediment to utilization of the site for the intended purposes. There are no major physical or topographic constraints and, thus, the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the retail commercial center and residential uses approved through the PD zoning. 3.The PD-Planned Development zoning will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that the Project will comply with all applicable development regulations and standards and will implement all adopted mitigation measures. 4 4.The PD-Planned Development zoning is consistent with and in conformance with the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as amended, in that the proposed uses of residential and commercial retail are consistent with the proposed residential and mixed-use land use designations for the site. C.Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council certified a Final EIR via Resolution No. xx-20 on June 16, 2020, prior to approving the Project. SECTION 3: ZONING MAP AMENDMENT Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code the City of Dublin Zoning Map is amended to rezone the property described below to a Planned Development Zoning District and supersedes and replaces the previously adopted zoning (Resolution No. 104-94): 76.9 acres bounded by Tassajara Road on the west, by Brannigan Street on the east, by I-580 on the south, and by a line approximately 150 feet north of Gleason Drive, primarily comprised of the following Assessor Parcel Numbers: 985-52-24, 985-52-25 and 985-51- 6 (the “Property”) A map of the rezoning area is shown below: SECTION 4. APPROVAL OF STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Property are set forth in the following Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the entire 77.3-acre project area, which is hereby approved. Any amendments to the Stage 1/Stage 2 Development Plan shall be in accordance with Section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code or its successors. Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan This is a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. This Development Plan meets all the requirements for both a Stage 1 and Stage 2 5 Development Plan and is adopted as part of the PD-Planned Development rezoning for the At Dublin Project (PLPA-2017-00061). The PD-Planned Development District and this Stage 1/Stage 2 Development Plan provides flexibility to encourage innovative development while ensuring that the goals, policies, and action programs of the General Plan and provisions of Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance are satisfied. The PD-Planned Development is divided into four Planning Areas (PA-1, PA-2, PA-3 and PA-4). A map of the Planning Areas and subareas is shown below: PLANNING AREA 1 (PA-1) 1. Statement of Uses (as defined by the Zoning Ordinance). Permitted Uses1: 1. Animal Sales and Services 2. Arcade, accessory to primary use 3. Automobile/Vehicle Brokerage 4. Banks and Financial Services 5. Billiard/Pool Hall, accessory to primary use 6. Building Materials Sales 7. Copying and Blueprinting 8. Dance Floor 9. Eating and Drinking Establishment 10. Eating and Drinking Establishment – Specialty 11. Eating and Drinking Establishment – Take Out 12. Health Club/Fitness Center 13. Health Services/Clinics 14. Hotel/Motel 15. Laboratory 16. Massage Establishment 17. Mobile Food Truck2 18. Mobile Retail Cart3 19. Multi-Family Residential 20. Office – Professional/Administrative 21. Outdoor Sale by Established On-site Business 6 22. Outdoor Seating 23. Outdoor Permanent Vendor 24. Personal Services 25. Plant Nursery 26. Recording Studio 27. Recreational Facility/Indoor and Outdoor 28. Retail – General 29. Retail Kiosk4 30. Retail – Neighborhood 31. Retail – Outdoor Storage 32. Retail – Service 33. Service Station 34. School – Commercial 35. Theater 36. Tobacco Retailer Conditionally Permitted Uses: 1. Animal Hospital, Veterinarian 2. Car Wash/Detailing (Zoning Administrator Approval) 3. Comedy Club 4. Community Facility (Zoning Administrator Approval) 5. Drive-In/Drive-Through Business 6. Nightclub 7. Repair Shop Temporary Uses5: 1. Arts and Crafts Fair 2. Christmas Tree Sales Lot 3. Construction-Related Temporary Uses 4. Farmers’ Market 5. Festival/Street Fair 6. Office – Trailer Commercial 7. Pumpkin Sales Lot 8. Outdoor Event by an Established Business6 9. Outdoor Sale Not Related to On-Site Established Business6 Notes: 1. A Zoning Clearance is required for those uses which are subject to a Zoning Clearance by the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Mobile Food Truck use shall comply with the following: a. A Site Development Review Waiver approving the location of a food truck is required. Applications for multiple food trucks may be combined into one Site Development Review Waiver application. The application shall include a site plan demonstrating compliance with the following: 1. The location of a mobile food vendor is limited to the parking area and shall not be located within a pedestrian plaza or public right-of-way. 7 2. The area used for all mobile food truck operations, including but not limited to customer queuing, trash, and dining, shall not impede the traffic visibility area at any driveway or intersection, emergency access, pedestrian and vehicular ingress or egress through the remainder of the parking, or the adjacent public right of way. 3. The area used for all mobile food truck operations, including but not limited to customer queuing, trash, and dining, shall not occupy more than 25 percent of the parking area. 4. If more than one mobile food vendor is on the site at one time, they shall be located within the same vicinity, not more than 25 feet apart. b. In addition to the Site Development Review Waiver, the following operational standards apply: 1. Hours of Operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. 2. The food truck must be stationary for a minimum of two (2) hours. No trolling allowed. 3. Provision of at least one trash receptacle, one recycling receptacle and one compost receptacle for use by patrons and in a convenient location that does not impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic. 4. Collection and removal of all litter and debris generated within a minimum 25- foot radius of the food truck. 5. No signs other than those exhibited on or in the mobile food truck. 6. Adequate lighting must be provided to ensure customer safety and shall be directed downwards and away from public streets and adjacent properties. 7. Maintenance of a valid business license from the City of Dublin. 8. Maintenance of a valid health permit from the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health. 3. Mobile Retail Cart. This includes small outdoor retail carts for the sale of any type of merchandise not constructed on a permanent foundation. The location is limited to the plaza areas. Up to a maximum of five carts are permitted. 4. Retail Kiosk. This is a fixed structure constructed on a permanent foundation for the sale of any type of merchandise, including food and beverages. The location is limited to the interior plaza area and approved subject to Site Development Review Waiver. Up to a maximum of five kiosks are permitted. 5. Subject to the Temporary Use Permit standards of the Zoning Ordinance 6. Outdoor Event by an Established Business and an Outdoor Sale Not Related to On- Site Established Business shall be limited to a maximum of 4 consecutive days, with a maximum of 4 such events during a calendar year. 2. Development Regulations. Standard PA 1 Minimum Lot Area None Minimum Lot Width/Frontage None Minimum Lot Depth None 8 Standard PA 1 Maximum Residential Units 240 Maximum Building Height 74 ft. Maximum Floor Area Ratio 0.5 Maximum Building Area1, 2, 3, 4 500,000 s.f. Setbacks Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.36 Development Regulations unless otherwise noted Minimum Setback 10 ft. at Dublin Blvd., Tassajara Rd. and Brannigan St. 15 ft. at I-580 Right of Way 5 ft. at Private Drives Required Parking5 Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.76 Off- Street Parking and Loading Regulations unless otherwise noted below. Residential 1.75 spaces /unit (Includes guest parking) Signage Pursuant to an approved Master Sign Program 1. Mixed-use building area includes commercial and multi-family apartment square footage. Maximum non-residential square footage is 240,000 square feet. 2. The 240,000 square feet of non-residential includes one hotel with a total of 75,000 square feet and a maximum of 155 rooms 3. Square footage for enclosed trash rooms or building electrical rooms shall not be counted toward the maximum building area. 4. Outdoor Mobile Vendors (i.e., retail kiosks and carts) are not included in the maximum building area. 5. So long as they comply with the development standards in the notes above, no parking is required for Mobile Food Trucks, Mobile Retail Carts, Retail Kiosks, and undesignated outdoor seating located in common areas for informal seating and dining. PLANNING AREA 2 (PA-2) 1. Statement of Uses PA-2 (as defined by the Zoning Ordinance). Permitted Uses: 1. Multi-Family Residential 2. Single-Family Residential Conditionally Permitted Uses: 1. Animal Day Care (restricted to Household Pets) Temporary Uses1: 1. Construction-Related Temporary Uses 2. Tract and Sales Office/Model Home Complex Notes: 1. Subject to the Temporary Use Permit standards of the Zoning Ordinance. 9 2. Development Regulations Planning Area 2 (PA-2). Standard PA-2 | Single Family Detached / Duplex Minimum Lot Area None Minimum Lot Width/Frontage None Minimum Lot Depth None Maximum Building Height 35 ft. 2 stories Maximum Residential Units 196 Maximum Density 6.7 du/ac Minimum Setbacks1 Front Living Area 14 ft. from center of alley Porch/Deck 2 ft. Garage 4 ft. Encroachments 2 2 ft. max. into required setback Side Corner Lot– Living Area 8 ft. Corner Lot - Porch/Deck 1 ft. Interior (Single Family Detached) 5 ft. Interior (Duplex) 0 ft. on attached side 5 ft on detached side Encroachments 2 2 ft. max. into required setback Rear Living Area 5 ft. Encroachments 2 2 ft. max. into required setback Minimum Building Separation Garage to Garage 28 ft. Building to Building 10 ft. (not including attached units) Encroachments 2 2 ft. max. into required setback Required Parking 2 spaces covered/unit Guest Parking 1 space/unit On-street parking can be counted toward the number of required guest spaces 1. Setbacks are measured from property line; except as noted where it is measured from center of alley 2. Encroachments may include window bays, chimneys, and other architectural projections. PLANNING AREA 3 and 4 (PA-3 and PA-4) 1. Statement of Uses (as defined by the Zoning Ordinance). 10 Permitted Uses: 1. Single-Family Residential 2. Community Care Facility/Small Conditionally Permitted Uses: 1. Animal Day Care (restricted to Household Pets) 2. Bed and Breakfast Inn Temporary Uses1: 1. Construction-Related Temporary Uses 2. Tract and Sales Office/Model Home Complex Notes: 1. Subject to the Temporary Use Permit standards of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Development Regulations – Planning Area 3 (PA-3) Standard PA 3 Single Family Detached Minimum Lot Area 4,000 s.f. Minimum Lot Width 50 ft. Minimum Lot Depth 80 ft. Maximum Building Height 35 ft. 2 stories Maximum Residential Units 115 Maximum Density 5.56 du/ac Minimum Setbacks1 Front Living Area 10 ft. Porch/Deck 10 ft. Garage Door 18 ft. Encroachments 2 2 ft. max. into required setback Side Living Area 5 ft. Corner Lot-Living Area 8 ft. Porch/Deck 5 ft. Corner Lot – Porch/Deck 5 ft. Encroachments 2 2 ft. max. into required setback Rear Living Area 10 ft. Encroachments 2 2 ft. max into required setback Usable Private Yard Space 200 s.f. min. 10 ft. min. dimension Required Parking 2 spaces covered/unit Guest Parking 1 space/unit On-street parking can be counted toward the number of required guest spaces 1. Setbacks are measured from property line. 2. Encroachments may include window bays, chimneys, and other architectural projections. 11 3. Development Regulations – Planning Area 4 (PA-4) Standard PA 4 Single Family Detached Minimum Lot Area 2,000 s.f. Minimum Lot Width 40 ft. Minimum Lot Depth 40 ft. Maximum Building Height 35 ft. 2 stories Maximum Residential Units 15 Maximum Density 4.8 du/ac Minimum Setbacks1 Front Living Area 2 ft. Porch/Deck 2 ft. Garage Door 5 ft. Encroachments 2 2 ft. max. into required setback Side Interior 4 ft. Corner 4 ft. Encroachments 2 2 ft. max. into required setback Rear Living Area 6 ft. Encroachments 2 2 ft. max. into required setback Usable Private Yard Space 200 s.f. min. 10 ft. min. dimension Required Parking 2 spaces covered/unit Guest Parking 1 space/unit 1. Setbacks are measured from property line. 2. Encroachments may include window bays, chimneys, and other architectural projections. PLANNING AREAS - ALL 1. Phasing Plan. The Project is to be constructed in two phases. Phase 1 is comprised of PA-2 and the north half of PA-1. Phase 2 includes the south half of PA-1 and all of PA-3 and PA-4. Although the Project is divided into different phases, it is anticipated that these phases will overlap with most of the construction happening concurrently. To ensure that the residential portions of the Project do not wholly develop in advance of the retail/commercial portions, the following restriction is imposed on the issuance of permits: o No building permits shall be issued for development on PA-3 or PA-4 until the improvement plans for Phase 1 and/or Phase 2 in PA-1 have been approved and bonds posted. 12 2. General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Consistency. The Project is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as amended by the Project. The land use designations for the Project site is Mixed-Use for PA-1, Medium Density Residential for PA-2 and Single-Family Residential for PA-3 and PA-4. The development permitted by the proposed zoning for each PA is consistent with that PA’s land use designation. The Mixed-Use land use designation permits FARs ranging from 0.30 to 1.0, and the Project would permit development at a FAR of 0.5 in the area (PA-1) with this designation. The Medium Density land use designation permits up to 10 dwelling units per acre and the Project would permit residential uses at 6.7 dwelling units per acre in the area (PA-2) with this designation. The Single-Family Residential land use designation allows up to six dwelling units per acre and the Project would permit residential uses at 5.6 and 4.8 dwelling units per acre, respectively, in the areas (PA-3 and PA-4) with this designation. 3. Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. The Project is subject to the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Chapter 8.68) for the provision of affordable housing as a residential development of 20 units or more. The City’s Regulations also allow for exceptions commonly referred to as an “alternative method of compliance.” These exceptions include the payment of fees in lieu of constructing affordable units, construction of off-site housing projects, land dedication, etc. The Project includes 566 units, of which 71 units are required to be designated as affordable units. 4. Aerial Photo. 13 5. Site Plan. 6. Architectural Standards. The architecture of the development is characterized by clean, simple lines, reminiscent of a farmhouse or barn, and using natural materials and a classic color palette. Buildings are designed and situated to create a blend of formal and casual spaces across the site. The Project’s materials, landscapes and architecture are subtle reflections of farm life, and are guided by the concept of “modern agrarian,” taking inspiration from Dublin’s agricultural past and California’s wine regions. The architectural design shall reflect the following standards: • Employ high quality materials to provide visual interest in the Project and to complement its surroundings. • Use diversity of textures in the building finishes providing a varied and interesting base form for the buildings. • Incorporate features such as different wall planes, heights, wall textures, roof elements, roof forms, light fixtures and landscaping to contribute layers of detail at the pedestrian level. • Architectural details shall extend around all sides of building, including rear elevations when visible to perimeter public streets. Additionally, taking cues from these early California agrarian influences and from iconic mid- century modern designs that are prevalent in the Bay Area, the introduction of a purely modern aesthetic will tie together regional inspirations of architecture with today’s lifestyle. Illustrative examples of single-family residential architecture. 14 Illustrative examples of multi-family residential architecture. Illustrative example of commercial architecture. 15 Residential (PA-1, 2, 3 and 4) The goal of the residential architecture is to complement that of the commercial area and provide design continuity within the Project as a whole. The objective of the following criteria is to allow flexibility within each Planning Area while maintaining a cohesive design theme throughout the Project. The architecture design shall employ a variety of colors and high- quality materials. Modifications to Residential Modifications to the architecture and layout shall be approved administratively by the Community Development Director or designee with the following parameters: 1. Consistent with the architectural standards as provided above. 2. Consistent with the approved scale of the buildings. 3. The modification does not significantly alter the roofline. 4. The proposed design is consistent with the architectural identity of the development. Commercial (PA-1) Planning Area 1 (PA-1) is characterized by a mix of building footprint sizes including a hotel, movie theater, residential apartment building, various retail typologies and centrally located plaza. PA-1 contains the Tassajara Gateway plaza, which is located at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road. Tassajara Gateway Design The commercial area is located in the Tassajara Gateway of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Buildings along Tassajara Road, especially those closest to I-580, will contribute significantly to the look and feel of the Tassajara Gateway. Emphasis should be placed on design of these buildings, which shall include high quality architectural features and the screening of less desirable uses, which will contribute to the creation of a distinctive "gateway" image at the Tassajara Road entrance to eastern Dublin The goal of the architecture in the commercial areas is promote distinct storefronts and interesting architecture facing the public rights-of-way. The objective of the following design criteria is to allow the maximum expression of a store’s individual personality and character while maintaining a cohesive design theme throughout the Project. The architecture design shall employ a variety of colors and high-quality materials so that the buildings make a 16 statement on their own. The commercial buildings include a mix of single tenant and multi- tenant buildings. In both cases, the tenant overlay may include awnings, canopies, lighting and patios. Tenants may also elect to upgrade the storefronts and may even modify or upgrade significant portions of the façade. The Tenant Design Criteria below defines allowable and prohibited criteria for all these tenant elements. Tenant Design Criteria: Tenant Entries Tenants are required to use swinging entrance doors for their primary entry. Overhead rolling doors, air curtains, and other full-width storefront closure systems may be permitted, subject to City approval, at certain tenant locations. Tenants may employ multiple swinging entrance doors to provide a greater degree of openness to the storefront. Restaurants with outdoor seating, or tenants with a regular exterior sales display area, such as a garden center, are permitted to have secondary doors that extend the width of their exterior presence provided that these secondary doors are in keeping with the quality and character of the Project, such as “Nanawall” type enclosures or glazed “garage” type doors. Doors shall be constructed of wood, steel, or high-quality aluminum. Door hardware shall be of a consistent finish and selected to complement the overall storefront character. All doors must have thresholds and door sweeps integrated into their design. Tall entry doors of eight feet minimum are required; higher doors are encouraged. Storefront Materials Tenant storefront materials and colors shall be carefully selected to achieve an overall built form that accentuates the uniqueness of individual tenants and adds to the fabric of the street. Materials should be high quality, non-corrosive, exterior rated, and should suit the local environment. Careful attention to the detailing or joinery of differing materials is required. A carefully defined edge must be established between different materials and surfaces on the storefront as well as between the tenant and landlord finishes. Tenant storefront design may not consist of glazing only. However, tenants may elect to enhance the landlord-provided storefront system (glazing). Materials and colors should highlight and reinforce unique forms with a facade or storefront, such as base and corner elements, entrances, and other features. Sustainable and recycled materials are highly encouraged. Permitted materials include brick, cast-in-place or precast concrete, unitized ceramic panels, non-reflective metal panels, stone, wood, smooth stucco, plaster, EIFS (exterior insulation and finish system), cement-fiber lap siding, and curtain wall glazing systems forming an exterior wall system. Unique finishes such as rusted, etched, or imprinted steel may be considered for special design objectives. Any plaster or stucco finishes shall be used in combination with other higher visual quality materials such as stone, wood, or metal and shall not dominate as the primary storefront material. Simulated woods, such as a wood-finish tile or wood-finish high pressure laminates shall be considered on a case-by-case basis. Any paint applied to materials of the tenant storefront must be clearly specified. Paints shall be of a high quality for even, durable finishes. Painted gypsum is not permitted on any exterior surface. Tenants are encouraged to consider original and creative design approaches. Large portions of tenant facades may be upgraded with tenant materials and expressions, but these should 17 be integrated into the building in a way that fits the overall project expression, for example by including some of the landlord architecture materials. Prohibited materials include: large areas or bulkheads of EIFS, rough stucco or stucco with patterned finishes, “antiquing” through use of stains, varnishes, or other means, vinyl or fabric wall coverings, mirror glass, plexiglass or other plastics, anodized aluminum finishes, and smoked or tinted finishes. Landlord reserves the right to prohibit materials that clash with the base building finishes. Canopies and Awning Types Tenant may opt to include an architectural canopy in storefront design. Fixed canopies must maintain a minimum height of nine feet clear above grade and must be constructed of appropriate exterior-rated materials, included glass, factory painted steel, stainless steel, wood, or composite panels over an aluminum of steel frame. Canopies greater than three feet in depth must incorporate recessed or sconce lighting into their design; if four feet or greater, canopies must be fire-sprinklered. Tenants are encouraged to provide metal or glass canopies over fabric awnings. Vinyl awnings are not permitted. Retail Tenants in Mixed-use building: The retail tenants are located at the street level of the mixed-use building with residential uses on the upper floors. Canopies or awnings are required to enhance the visibility of each retailer. Canopies or awnings are required to protect the entry and at least 40 percent of the width of the storefront. The tenant façade area is defined as the area between landlord provided pilasters, the pavement, and up to a 15 feet vertical datum or height as otherwise indicated on the multifamily shell drawings. Pilasters extend down from the upper levels at fixed locations. 18 Overhangs/Overbuild Overhangs are permitted in storefronts provided they are an integral part of the storefront design and assuming they meet the setbacks. The underside of overhangs must be articulated with architectural elements such as brackets, coffers, or exposed beam ends. Seating and Accessories No exterior accessories are allowed unless approved by the City and the landlord leasing plan and included in leasing terms. If approved, exterior accessories must not impede or restrict pedestrian or vehicular movement. Tenant must receive approval of all elements placed outside of their lease line prior to their installation or placement. Tenant may be allowed to accessorize their storefront through the addition of potted plants, tables and chairs, benches, and other non-permanent and readily moveable elements in the area immediately in front of the tenant’s storefront only if included in lease terms and approved in advance of placement. Accordingly, such accessories shall be the property of the tenant, subject to the terms of the lease agreement, and maintained in a first-class manner. All exterior accessories shall align with the aesthetic of the Project in quality and aesthetics and must be preapproved. Any accessories left outside on a regular basis should be of a size and weight to discourage theft. If accessories are chained together overnight for security, the cables and locks must be discreet and fully removed during business hours. 19 Exterior Building Lighting Tenants may not add or replace fixtures without prior approval. Any additional tenant lighting should be integrated into the landlord architectural and lighting design without negatively impacting surrounding land uses and the streetscape. Additional or replaced lighting should integrate with retail signage, storefront windows, and other building elements to enhance visual interest; this may include wall-wash lighting, wall sconces, and other innovative lighting solutions. Light fixtures will complement the landlord lighting and the overall “modern agrarian” project architecture and may include fixture types such as: gooseneck, RLM (reflector light microscopy) lamping, or modern interpretations of the previous. Exterior building lighting shall be commercial grade in quality and size and subject to California Building Code Title 24. All store entrance light levels must meet local code requirements. All exterior tenant lighting shall remain lit for at least one hour after store closing, and as otherwise required by local codes. The landlord may require any tenant exterior lighting to be placed on house lighting circuits controlled by the landlord via a time clock. Manual switches for exterior lighting are prohibited. All emergency and exit lighting provided by the tenant shall be provided with emergency battery power back-up. 20 Exterior Illumination at Patios Tenants may elect to incorporate additional lighting at covered and uncovered patio spaces. The tenant’s lighting design at leased patio spaces may include overhead lights such as catenary lighting or suspended luminaires, and directional lighting. Tenants may attach lighting to landlord shade structures such as pergolas or overhead trellises, subject to landlord and City approval. Uniform flood lighting, strobe or spinner type lighting are prohibited. Food Service – General Requirements Food-service tenants are encouraged to utilize operable/retractable storefront windows such as bi-fold or single-swing storefront windows to connect to outdoor dining patios and to promote the Project concept of indoor/outdoor restaurants. Subject to landlord approval, food service tenants may be permitted to alter or enhance the landlord facade (such as changing 21 building materials or modifying/adding openings) that support the theme of “farm to table,” or the idea of bringing food and production forward. Outdoor Dining Food service tenants may be permitted to include outdoor seating in the area immediately in front of their premises, provided that the seating area and any surrounding railing or enclosure do not impede or restrict the required or desired pedestrian and vehicular pathways. Railings must be artfully designed with decorative elements and an interesting use of materials. Standard pickets or wire railings are not acceptable and all railings are subject to approval. Allowable areas for outdoor seating and rental terms will be defined in the Tenant’s Lease Agreement and will correspond to the overall patio plan approved for the Project. Tables and chairs used in outdoor seating areas, including those under awnings or canopies, must be rated for commercial outdoor use and approved. Umbrellas must be closed or removed at night and shall be of sufficient weight and strength to avoid being broken or uplifted by winds. The umbrella fabric must be flame retardant material in a color approved. The minimum standard umbrella fabric is Sunbrella Firesist. Branded or logoed umbrellas are prohibited. If tables and chairs are chained together overnight for security, the cables and locks must be discreet and fully removed during business hours. Outdoor Dining – Designing for Wind In consideration of the windy conditions in Dublin, the design of the buildings shall consider the direction of wind and utilize architecturally appropriate wind screens in outdoor dining areas. 22 Modifications to Commercial (PA-1) Modifications to the architecture, layout, depth and height of the buildings, which may alter site circulation, in PA-1 shall be consistent with the Planned Development Zoning Development Regulations and approved administratively by the Community Development Director with the following parameters: 1. Consistent with the Tenant Design Criteria as provided above. 2. Consistent with the approved floor area ratio, and substantially conforms with the scale of the buildings. 3. The modification does not significantly alter the roofline of the building. 4. The façade (all sides) of a single building does not exceed 120 linear feet, unless the façade is designed and articulated to create the appearance of multiple storefronts and/or individual building forms. 5. Large outdoor display and/or storage areas shall be integrated into the building’s architecture. 7. Preliminary Landscape Plan. The landscape design of the Project shall reflect the following standards. The landscape design shall: • Provide interpretive and educational components to enrich visitor’s experience on the site. 23 •Treat the site’s storm water in a set of basins throughout the site that are linked to the site’s water infrastructure, or for areas where regional treatment was previously approved, treat the site’s stormwater in a regional stormwater treatment basin. •Create a visual buffer and soften the edge between the public realm and the site. •Utilize plants that provide a year-round vegetated landscape with seasonality, color, and interest for an attractive visual environment. 8.Applicable Requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Except as specifically provided in this Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, the use, development, improvement and maintenance of the Property shall be governed by the provision of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance pursuant to 8.32.060C or its successor. The closest comparable zoning districts are as follows: PA-1: C-2 (General Commercial Zoning District) for the commercial portion and R-M (Multi-Family Residential Zoning District) for the residential portion. PA-2: R-2 (Two Family Residential) PA-3 and PA-4: R-1 (Single Family Residential) 9.Statement of Compatibility with Stage 1 Development Plan. The Stage 2 portion of this Development Plan is consistent with the Stage 1 portion of this Development Plan. SECTION 5. POSTING OF ORDINANCE The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) 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 thirty (30) days following its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this ___ day of _______, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _____________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. xx-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE MAP NOS. 8440, 8449 AND 8452 FOR THE AT DUBLIN PROJECT PLPA 2017-00061 (APNS 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, AND 985-0052-025) WHEREAS, the Applicant, Shea Properties in partnership with SCS Development Company, is requesting Vesting Tentative Maps for the At Dublin Project. The proposed Project includes up to 566 residential units comprised of apartments, detached small-lot single-family homes and 55 and older age restricted single-family homes, and up to 240,000 square feet of retail commercial development, related infrastructure and landscape improvements. Requested land use approvals include General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezoning (Stage 1 and Stage 2), Vesting Tentative Map Nos. 8440, 8449 and 8452, a Street Vacation, and a Development Agreement, among other related actions. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the “At Dublin Project” or the “Project;” and WHEREAS, the Project site is 76.9 acres generally bound by Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive, Brannigan Street and I-580 (APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985- 0052-024, and 985-0052-025); and WHEREAS, the Project site is located within the Dublin Town Center Priority Development Area (PDA) which includes a mix of housing types including single -family detached, townhomes, condominiums and apartments. The Town Center PDA is envisioned as a walkable area with locally serving businesses within walking distance or a short ride from residential neighborhoods, conveniently served by transit; and WHEREAS, the Project site is located within a Planned Development Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Project plans, illustrate the site layout for the Project consistent with the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Planned Development zoning proposed as part of this Project; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the CEQA Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated July 2018, a Final EIR dated October 2018, and an Errata dated January 2020, for the proposed Project, which reflected the City’s independent judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR identified potentially significant environmental effects anticipated as a result of the Project such as, aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and transportation, m ost of which can be substantially reduced through mitigation measures; and 2 WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was circulated for 45 days for public comment from July 6, 2018 to August 20, 2018; and WHEREAS, comments received on the Draft EIR were reviewed and responded to, and the Final EIR (that contains the Response to Comments) dated October 2018 was prepared; and WHEREAS, following a public hearing on October 30, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 18-24, recommending denial of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments and the entirety of the Project, consisting of up to 665 residential units comprised of apartments, townhomes and detached small -lot single-family homes and up to 400,500 square feet of commercial development, related infrastructure, a public park and landscape improvements, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, on November 20, 2018, following a request from the Applicant, the City Council continued the Project to an undetermined future date; and WHEREAS, in October 2019, the Applicant submitted a revised Project in response to public comments, consisting of up to 566 residential units comprised of apartments, detached small-lot single-family homes and 55 and older age restricted single-family homes, up to 240,000 square feet of retail commercial development, and related infrastructure and landscape improvements; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, the City analyzed the revised Project and determined that there was no new significant information, or substantially more severe, significant environmental impact as a result of the revised Project, requiring recirculation of the EIR; and WHEREAS, following a public hearing on February 25, 2020, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 20-05, recommending denial of the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the At Dublin project based on traffic impacts, pedestrian and bicycle concerns, and the Project’s inconsistency with the longstanding vision for these parcels, namely less housing and more commercial/retail serving as a “town center” and “gateway to the city” with a walkable environment, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated June 16, 2020 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project, including Vesting Tentative Map Nos. 8440, 8449 and 8452, for the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on Vesting Tentative Map Nos. 8440, 8449 and 8452 on June 16, 2020, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, on June 16, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. xx-20 certifying the At Dublin Project EIR and adopting CEQA findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project; and 3 WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the proposed Vesting Tentative Map Nos. 8440, 8449 and 8452 for the Project: A. The proposed subdivision map together with the provisions for its design and improvement is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan because: 1) the proposed Vesting Tentative Map Nos. 8440, 8449 and 8452 together with the provisions for their design and improvements comply with the development standards of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Stage 2 Development Plan . B. The subdivision site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development because: 1) the Project site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development is consistent with the land use designations of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Stage 2 Development Plan; 2) the proposed development is consistent with the scale of other developments in the immediate vicinity; and 3) t he Project site is located on 77.3 gross acres of relatively flat topography and, therefore, is physically suitable for the type and density of development that is proposed. C. The tentative tract map is consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision design or improvements of the tentative tract map are consistent with the ci ty’s general plan and any applicable specific plan because: 1) the proposed Vesting Tentative Maps to create parcels that generally reflect the Planning Areas as proposed for residential and commercial uses are consistent with the development densities of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Stage 2 Development Plan. D. The subdivision design and proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because: 1) the proposed Vesting Tentative Maps are for the development of a relatively flat and vacant property which has been disturbed through vegetation management for years; 2) the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (Resolution No. xx-20) which mitigated any potential impacts and, therefore, the proposed subdivision will not result in environmental damage or substantially injure fish or wildlife or their habitat or cause public health concerns. E. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause serious public health concerns because: 1) the design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause serious public health concerns as it has been conditioned to comply with all building codes and ordinances in effect at the time of permit issuance; 2) in addition, the City conducted a review to evaluate the Project’s impacts; and 3) the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (Resolution No. xx-20) which mitigated any potential impacts to public. F. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed 4 subdivision; or alternate easements are provided pursuant to Government Code Section 66474(g) because: 1) the City Engineer has reviewed the Vesting Tentative Maps and title report and has determined that the future proposed buildings will not conflict with existing or new easements nor with future property lines. G. The design or improvements of the tentative map are consistent with the city’s general plan and any applicable specific plan because: 1) the proposed Vesting Tentative Maps together with the provisions for their design and improvements comply with the development standards of the Stage 2 Planned Development and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. H. The subdivision is designed to provide for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities because: 1) the Project would be constructed in accordance with the latest building code and green building regulations/CalGreen; 2) the Project includes green common spaces through a network of plazas, parks and paseos that are designed with landscaping to reduce urban heat island effects; and 3) landscaping will be provided throughout the surface parking lot providing natural shading and a parking structure for the multi-family use in PA-1 is proposed which would provide shade and reduce open parking areas. I. The tentative tract map, including design and improvement, shall comply with all the applicable provisions and requirements of the zoning ordinance, the latest municipal stormwater permit issued to the city by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, this tit le, any other ordinance of the city, and the Subdivision Map Act because: 1) the Project is compliant with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit; 2) the Project would include bioretention areas and stormwater treatment vaults to ensure consistency with regional C.3 stormwater treatment; and 3) the Project would include full trash capture devices to ensure consistency with regional C.10 stormwater treatment requirements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby approve Vesting Tentative Map Nos. 8440, 8449 and 8452 for the At Dublin Project, subject to the conditions included below. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies respo nsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval. [PL.] Planning, [B] Building, [PO] Police, [PW] Public Works [P&CS] Parks & Community Services, [ADM] Administration/City Attorney, [FIN] Finance, [F] Alameda County Fire Department, [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District, [CO] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, [Z7] Zone 7. # CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ’D Prior to: General Conditions 1. Approval. This approval is for the At Dublin Project (PLPA-2017-00061). This approval shall be as generally depicted and indicated on the Vesting Tentative Map PL Ongoing 5 prepared Ruggeri Jensen Azar, dated January 14, 2020, attached as Exhibit A and other plans, text, and diagrams relating to this Project, and as specified as the following Conditions of Approval for this project. 2. Permit Expiration. The Vesting Tentative Maps term shall coincide with the Term of Project Approvals defined in the Development Agreement. PW Defer to the DA 3. Compliance. Applicant/Developer shall comply with the Subdivision Map Act, the City of Dublin Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, City of Dublin Title 7 Public Works Ordinance, which includes the Grading Ordinance, the City of Dublin Public Works Standards and Policies, the most current requirements of the State Code Title 24 and the Americans with Disabilities Act with regard to accessibility, and all building and fire codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. All public improvements constructed by Applicant/Developer and to be dedicated to the City are hereby identified as “public works” under Labor Code section 1771. Accordingly, Applicant/Developer, in constructing such improvements, shall comply with the Prevailing Wage Law (Labor Code. Sects. 1720 and following). Various Final Map Approval, Grading Permit or Building Permit Issuance 4. Fees. The Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable fees and receive all applicable fee credits in effect at the time of Final Map approval, Grading Permit issuance and Building Permit issuance, including, but not limited to: Planning fees; Building fees; Traffic Impact Fees, TVTC fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District fees; Public Facilities fees; Dublin Unified School District Impact fees, Fire Facilities Impact fees, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) fees, and any other fee or credit that may be adopted and applicable, as provided by the Development Agreement. The Developer shall be eligible for Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (EDTIF) credits for public improvements constructed on Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard, Central Parkway and Gleason Drive as well as certain improvements to Branigan associated with intersection improvements. The amount of credit shall be consistent with the improvements constructed, not to exceed the amount set forth in the EDTIF. Various Final Map Approval, Grading Permit or Building Permit Issuance 5. Zone 7 Impervious Surface Fees. The Applicant/Developer shall complete a “Zone 7 Impervious Surface Fee Application” and submit an accompanying exhibit for review by the Public Works Department. Fees generated by this application will be due at issuance of Building Permit. PW Final Map Approval, Grading Permit or Building Permit Issuance 6. Hold Harmless/Indemnification. The Applicant/Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, ADM On-going 6 Planning Commission, City Council, Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City to the extent such actions are brought within the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law: provided, however, that the Applicant/Developer’s duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be submitted to the City’s promptly notifying or proceeding and the City’s full cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings. 7. Clarifications and Changes to the Conditions. In the event that there needs to be clarification to these Conditions of Approval, the City Engineer and Community Development Director has the authority to clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Applicant/Developer without going to a public hearing. The City Engineer also has the authority to make minor modifications to these conditions without going to a public hearing in order for the Applicant/Developer to fulfill needed improvements or mitigations resulting from impacts of this project. PL, PW On-going Planning – Project Specific Conditions 8. Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Applicant/ Developer shall comply with At Dublin Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified by City Council Resolution xx-18, including all mitigation measures, action programs, and implementation measures contained therein. Improvement plans shall incorporate the all improvements required including, but not limited to, MM TR-1.1 The EIR is on file with the Community Development Department. PL, PW Approval of Improvement Plans and Ongoing Dublin San Ramon Services District 9. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be by separate instrument irrevocably offered to DSRSD or by offer of dedication on the Final Map. Prior to approval by the City for Recordation, the Final Map shall be submitted to and approved by DSRSD for easement locations, widths, and restrictions. DSRSD Approval of Final Map Public Works - General Conditions 10. Conditions of Approval. Developer shall comply with the City of Dublin Public Works General Conditions of Approval below (“General Conditions”) unless specifically modified by the Project Specific Conditions of Approval that follow the General Conditions. PW On-going Public Works - Agreements 11. Storm Water Treatment Measures Maintenance Agreement. Applicant/Developer shall enter into an Agreement with the City of Dublin that guarantees the property owner’s perpetual maintenance obligation for all stormwater treatment measures installed as part of the project, including those on-site and within the public Rights of Way. Said Agreement is required pursuant to Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2009-0074. Said permit requires the City to provide verification and assurance that PW Approval of Final Map 7 all treatment devices will be properly operated and maintained. The Agreement shall be recorded against the property and shall run with the land. 12. Improvement Agreement. Applicant/Developer shall enter into a Tract Improvement Agreement with the City for all public improvements including any required offsite storm drainage or roadway improvements that are needed to serve the development, as determined by the City Engineer. PW Approval of Final Map Public Works – Permits and Bonds 13. Encroachment Permit. Applicant/Developer shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department for all construction activity within the public right-of-way. At the discretion of the City Engineer an encroachment permit for work specifically included in an Improvement Agreement may not be required. PW Permit Issuance 14. Grading Permit. Applicant/Developer shall obtain a Grading Permit from the Public Works Department for all grading. PW Permit Issuance 15. Security. Applicant/Developer shall provide faithful performance security to guarantee the improvements, as determined by the City Engineer (Note: The performance security shall remain in effect until one year after final inspection). PW Permit Issuance 16. Permits from Other Agencies. Applicant/Developer shall obtain all permits and/or approvals required by other agencies including, but not limited to: • Army Corps of Engineers • US Fish and Wildlife • Regional Water Quality Control Board • Federal Emergency Management Agency • California Department of Fish and Wildlife • California Dept. of Transportation (Caltrans) • Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) • Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) • Tri-Valley-San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority • Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) • Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 (Zone 7) PW Permit Issuance Public Works – Submittals 17. Improvement Plan Submittal Requirements. All submittals of plans shall comply with the requirements of the “City of Dublin Public Works Department Improvement Plan Submittal Requirements”, the “City of Dublin Improvement Plan Review Check List,” and current Public Works and industry standards. A complete submittal of improvement plans shall include all civil improvements, joint trench, street lighting and on-site safety lighting, landscape plans, and all associated documents as required. Applicant/Developer shall not piecemeal the submittal by submitting various components separately. PW Grading Permit Issuance 8 18. Improvement Plan Requirements from Other Agencies. Applicant/Developer will be responsible for submittals and reviews to obtain the approvals of all applicable non-City agencies, including but not limited to: the Alameda County Fire Department and the Dublin San Ramon Services District. PW Grading Permit Issuance 19. Composite Exhibit. Construction plan set shall include a Composite Exhibit showing all site improvements, utilities, landscaping improvements and trees, etc. to be constructed to ensure that there are no conflicts among the proposed and existing improvements. PW Grading Permit Issuance 20. Geotechnical Report. Applicant/Developer shall submit a Design Level Geotechnical Report, which includes street pavement sections, grading and additional information and/or clarifications as determined by the City Engineer. PW Grading Permit Issuance 21. Ownership and Maintenance of Improvements. Applicant/Developer shall submit an Ownership and Maintenance Exhibit for review and approval by Planning Division and Public Works Department. Terms of maintenance are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. PL, PW Approval of Final Map or Grading Permit Issuance 22. Building Pads, Slopes and Walls. Applicant/Developer shall provide the Public Works Department with a letter from a registered civil engineer or surveyor stating that the building pads have been graded to within 0.1 feet of the grades shown on the approved Grading Plans, and that the top & toe of banks and retaining walls are at the locations shown on the approved Grading Plans. PW Acceptance of Improvements 23. Approved Plan Files. Applicant/Developer shall provide the Public Works Department a PDF format file of approved site plans, including grading, improvement, landscaping & irrigation, joint trench and lighting. PW Grading Permit Issuance 24. Master Files. Applicant/Developer shall provide the Public Works Department a digital vectorized file of the “master” files for the project, in a format acceptable to the City Engineer. Digital raster copies are not acceptable. The digital vectorized files shall be in AutoCAD 14 or higher drawing format. All objects and entities in layers shall be colored by layer and named in English. All submitted drawings shall use the Global Coordinate System of USA, California, NAD 83 California State Plane, Zone III, and U.S. foot. PW Acceptance of Improvements Public Works – Final Map, Easements and Access Rights 25. Dedications. All rights-of-way and easement dedications required by these conditions or determined necessary by the City Engineer shall be shown on the Final Map. PW Approval of Final l Map 26. Public Service Easements. A Public Service Easement (PSE), at a width to be approved by the City Engineer, shall be dedicated along the project’s frontage on Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard, Central Parkway, Gleason Drive and Brannigan Street to allow for the proper placement of public utility vaults, boxes, appurtenances or similar items behind the back-of-sidewalk. Private improvements such as fences, gates or trellises shall not PW Approval of Final Map 9 be located within the PSE. 27. Emergency Vehicle Access Easements. The Applicant/Developer shall dedicate Emergency Vehicle Access Easements (EVAE) over the clear pavement width of all drive aisles as required by the Alameda County Fire Department and City Engineer. PW Approval of Final Map 28. Abandonment of Easements. Applicant/Developer shall obtain abandonment from all applicable public agencies of existing easements and rights-of-way within the project site that will no longer be used. Prior to completion of abandonment, the improvement plans may be approved if the Applicant/Developer can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the abandonment process has been initiated. PW Approval of Final Map 29. Acquisition of Easements. Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for obtaining all onsite and offsite easements, and/or obtain rights-of-entry from the adjacent property owners for any improvements not located on their property. The Applicant/Developer shall prepare all required documentation for dedication of all easements on-site and off-site. The easements and/or rights-of-entry shall be in writing and copies furnished to the Public Works Department. PW Approval of Final Map Public Works – Grading 30. Grading Plan. The Grading Plan shall be in conformance with the recommendation of the Geotechnical Report, the approved Tentative Map and Site Development Review, and the City design standards & ordinances. In case of conflict between the soil engineer’s recommendation and the City ordinances, the City Engineer shall determine which shall apply. PW Grading Permit Issuance 31. Geotechnical Engineer Review and Approval. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall be retained to review all final grading plans and specifications. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall approve all grading plans prior to City approval. PW Grading Permit Issuance/ Sitework Permit 32. Grading Off-Haul. The disposal site and haul truck route for any off-haul dirt materials shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. If the Developer does not own the parcel on which the proposed disposal site is located, the Applicant/Developer shall provide the City with a Letter of Consent signed by the current owner, approving the placement of off-haul material on their parcel. A Grading Plan may be required for the placement of the off-haul material. PW Grading Permit Issuance/ Sitework Permit 33. Erosion Control Plan. A detailed Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be included with the Grading Plan submittal. The plan shall include detailed design, location, and maintenance criteria of all erosion and sedimentation control measures. PW Grading Permit Issuance 34. Demolition Plan. The Applicant/Developer’s Civil Engineer shall prepare a demolition plan for the project, which shall PW Grading Permit Issuance 10 be submitted concurrent with the improvement plan package. The demolition plan shall address the following: • Pavement demolition, including streetlights and landscaped median islands. • Landscaping and irrigation • Fencing to be removed and fencing to remain • Any items to be saved in place and or protected, such as trees, water meters, sewer cleanouts, drainage inlets or backflow prevention devices. Public Works – Storm Drainage & Other Utilities 35. On-site Storm Drain System. Storm drainage for the 10- year storm event shall be collected on-site and conveyed through storm drains to the public storm drain system. Show the size and location of existing and proposed storm drains and catch basins on the site plan. Show the size and location of public storm drain lines and the points of connection for the on-site storm drain system. PW Grading Permit Issuance 36. Overland Release. Grading and drainage shall be designed so that surplus drainage (above and beyond that of the 10-year storm event) not collected in site catch basins, is directed overland so as not to cause flooding of existing or proposed buildings. PW Grading Permit Issuance 37. Storm Drain Easements. Private storm drain easements and maintenance roads shall be provided for all private storm drains or ditches that are located on private property. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for the acquisition of all storm drain easements from offsite property owners which are required for the connection and maintenance of all offsite storm drainage improvements. PW Grading Permit Issuance 38. Storm Drain Inlet Markers. All public and private storm drain inlets must be marked with storm drain markers that read: “No dumping, drains to creek,” and a note shall be shown on the improvement plans. The markers may be purchased from the Public Work Department. PW Acceptance of Improvements 39. Fire Hydrants. Fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the Alameda County Fire Department. A raised reflector blue traffic marker shall be installed in the street opposite each hydrant, and shown on the signing & striping plan. PW Acceptance of Improvements 40. Dry Utilities. Applicant/Developer shall construct gas, electric, telephone, cable TV, and communication improvements within the fronting streets and as necessary to serve the project and the future adjacent parcels as approved by the City Engineer and the various Public Utility agencies. PW Certificate of Occupancy or Acceptance of Improvements 41. Dry Utility Locations. All electric, telephone, cable TV, and communications utilities, shall be placed underground in accordance with the City policies and ordinances. All utilities shall be located and provided within public utility easements or public services easements and sized to meet utility company standards. PW Certificate of Occupancy or Acceptance of Improvements 42. Utility Vaults and Boxes. All utility vaults, boxes, and structures, unless specifically approved otherwise by the PW Certificate of Occupancy or 11 City Engineer, shall be underground and placed in landscaped areas and screened from public view. Landscape drawings shall be submitted to the City showing the location of all utility vaults, boxes, and structures and adjacent landscape features and plantings. The Joint Trench Plans shall be submitted along with the grading and/or improvement plans. Acceptance of Improvements Public Works – Street Improvements 43. Public Improvements. The public improvements shall be constructed generally as shown on the Vesting Tentative Map. However, the approval of the Tentative Map is not an approval of the specific design of the drainage, traffic circulation, parking, stormwater treatment, sidewalks and street improvements. PW Grading Permit or Encroachment Permit Issuance 44. Public Improvement Conformance. All public improvements shall conform to the City of Dublin Standard Plans, current practices, and design requirements and as approved by the City Engineer. PW Grading Permit or Encroachment Permit Issuance 45. Public Street Slopes. Public streets shall be a minimum 1% slope with minimum gutter flow of 0.7% around bulb outs. PW Grading Permit or Encroachment Permit Issuance 46. Decorative Pavement. Any decorative pavers/paving installed within City right-of-way shall be done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Where decorative paving is installed at signalized intersections, pre-formed traffic signal loops shall be put under the decorative pavement. Decorative pavements shall not interfere with the placement of traffic control devices, including pavement markings. All turn lane stripes, stop bars and crosswalks shall be delineated with concrete bands or colored pavers to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Maintenance costs of the decorative paving shall be the responsibility of the Applicant/Developer or future property owner. PW Grading Permit or Encroachment Permit Issuance 47. Curb, Gutter & Sidewalk. Applicant/Developer shall remove and replace damaged, hazardous, or nonstandard curb, gutter and sidewalk along the project frontage. Contact the Public Works Department to mark the existing curb, gutter and sidewalk that will need to be removed and replaced. PW Grading Permit or Encroachment Permit Issuance 48. Curb Ramps. City standard curb ramps are required at all intersections. All curb ramps shall include truncated domes, and meet the most current City and ADA design standards. Show curb ramp locations on the plans. Please note that all curb returns on public streets shall have directional or dual ADA ramps – one for each crosswalk and oriented to align parallel with the crosswalk. PW Grading Permit or Encroachment Permit Issuance 49. Intersection Site Visibility Triangle. All improvements within the sight visibility triangle at all intersections, including but not limited to walls and landscaping, shall be a maximum height of 30” from the roadway surface elevation at the nearest lane. Intersection Sight Visibility Triangles shall be calculated using the Corner Sight Distance Criteria for signalized intersections and the Safe PW Grading Permit or Encroachment Permit Issuance 12 Stopping Sight Distance Criteria for all other intersections as defined in the latest edition of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. Design of the intersection Visibility Triangles shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 50. Bus Stops. Bus Stops shall be installed as per the requirements of the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA). LAVTA shall approve the location and design of all bus stops, as part of the off-site improvement plans. PW Grading Permit or Encroachment Permit Issuance 51. Traffic Signal Interconnect (Fiber Optic). A fiber Optic interconnect for traffic signals shall be installed to connect to all traffic signals inside the project frontages as per the City’s requirements and shall include the fiber optic communication connectivity to existing upstream and downstream signals. PW Grading Permit or Encroachment Permit Issuance 52. Traffic Signing and Striping. Applicant/Developer shall install all traffic signage, striping, and pavement markings as required by the City Engineer. Signing plans shall show street name and stop signs and any other regulatory signage appropriate for the project. Striping plans shall show stop bars, lane lines and channelization as necessary. Striping plans shall distinguish between existing striping to be removed and new striping to be installed. All striping shall be thermoplastic. PW Grading Permit or Encroachment Permit Issuance 53. Street Lighting. Street light standards and luminaries shall be designed and installed or relocated as determined by the City Engineer. PW Grading Permit or Encroachment Permit Issuance Public Works – Construction 54. Erosion Control Implementation. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be implemented between October 1st and April 30th unless otherwise allowed in writing by the City Engineer. The Applicant/Developer will be responsible for maintaining erosion and sediment control measures for one year following the City’s acceptance of the improvements. PW Start of Construction and On-going 55. Archaeological Finds. If archaeological materials are encountered during construction, construction within 100 ft of these materials shall be halted until a professional Archaeologist certified by the Society of Calif. Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures. PW Start of Construction and On-going 56. Construction Activities. Construction activities, including the idling, maintenance, and warming up of equipment, shall be limited to Monday through Friday, and non-City holidays, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Extended hours or Saturday work will be considered by the City Engineer on a case-by-case basis. Note that the construction hours of operation within the public right-of-way are more restrictive. PW Start of Construction and On-going 13 57. Temporary Fencing. Temporary construction fencing shall be installed along the construction work perimeter to separate the construction area from the public. All construction activities shall be confined within the fenced area. Construction materials and/or equipment shall not be operated/stored outside of the fenced area or within the public right-of-way unless approved in advance by the City Engineer. PW Start of Construction and On-going 58. Construction Noise Management Plan. Applicant/Developer shall prepare a construction noise management plan that identifies measures to minimize construction noise on surrounding developed properties. The plan shall include hours of construction operation, use of mufflers on construction equipment, speed limit for construction traffic, haul routes and identify a noise monitor. Specific noise management measures shall be provided prior to project construction. PW Start of Construction Implementation, and On-going as needed 59. Traffic Control Plan. Closing of any existing pedestrian pathway and/or sidewalk during construction shall be implemented through a City-approved Traffic Control Plan and shall be done with the goal of minimizing the impact on pedestrian circulation. PW Start of Construction and On-going as needed 60. Construction Traffic Interface Plan. Applicant/Developer shall prepare a plan for construction traffic interface with public traffic on any existing public street. Construction traffic and parking may be subject to specific requirements by the City Engineer. PW Start of Construction; Implementation, and On-going as needed 61. Pest Control. Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for controlling any rodent, mosquito, or other pest problem due to construction activities. PW On-going 62. Dust Control Measures. Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for watering or other dust-palliative measures to control dust as conditions warrant or as directed by the City Engineer. PW Start of Construction; Implementation On-going as needed 63. Construction Traffic and Parking. All construction- related parking shall be off-street in an area provided by the Applicant/Developer. Construction traffic and parking shall be provided in a manner approved by the City Engineer. PW Start of Construction and On-going 64. Dust Control/Street Sweeping. The Applicant/Developer shall provide adequate dust control measures at all times during the grading and hauling operations. All trucks hauling export and import materials shall be provided with tarp cover at all times. Spillage of haul materials and mud-tracking on the haul routes shall be prevented at all times. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for sweeping of streets within, surrounding and adjacent to the project if it is determined that the tracking or accumulation of material on the streets is due to its construction activities. PW During Grading and Site Work Public Works – Erosion Control & Stormwater Quality 65. Stormwater Treatment. Consistent with Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) PW Grading Permit Issuance 14 Order No. R2-2015-0049, and the Revised Stormwater Management Plan for Dublin Ranch dated March 2003 and the Dublin Ranch Waste Discharge Requirements pursuant to RWQCB Order R2-2003-003.1, NPDES Permit CAS0029831, Applicant/Developer shall submit documentation including construction drawings demonstrating all stormwater treatment measures and hydromodification requirements as applicable are met. 66. Green Stormwater Infrastructure. The Applicant/Developer shall incorporate Green Infrastructure facilities within the public rights-of-way of newly constructed or widened streets, subject to the review of the Public Works Department. Green Stormwater Infrastructure facilities include, but are not limited to: infiltration basins, bioretention facilities, pervious pavements, etc. PW Grading Permit or Encroachment Permit Issuance 67. NOI and SWPPP. Prior to any clearing or grading, Applicant/Developer shall provide the City evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been sent to the California State Water Resources Control Board per the requirements of the NPDES. A copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the Public Works Department and be kept at the construction site. PW Start of Any Construction Activities 68. SWPPP. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the project construction activities. The SWPPP shall include the erosion and sediment control measures in accordance with the regulations outlined in the most current version of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook or State Construction Best Management Practices Handbook. The Applicant/Developer is responsible for ensuring that all contractors implement all storm water pollution prevention measures in the SWPPP. PW SWPPP to be Prepared Prior to Grading Permit Issuance; Implementation Prior to Start of Construction and On-going as needed 69. Stormwater Management Plan. A final Stormwater Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. Approval is subject to the Applicant/Developer providing the necessary plans, details, and calculations that demonstrate the plan complies with the standards issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Revised Stormwater Management Plan for Dublin Ranch dated March 2003 and the Dublin Ranch Waste Discharge Requirements pursuant to RWQCB Order R2-2003-003.1, NPDES Permit CAS0029831. PW Building Permit Issuance and Grading Permit Issuance 70. Trash Capture. The project Stormwater Management Plan shall incorporate trash capture measures such as screens, filters or hydrodynamic separator units to address the requirements of Provision C.10 of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) or such MRP provisions as may be in effect at the time the Improvement Plans are PW Building Permit Issuance and Grading Permit Issuance 15 approved. Public Works – Onsite Improvements 71. Drive Aisle Width. The parking lot aisles shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide to allow for adequate onsite vehicle circulation for cars, trucks, and emergency vehicles. PW Grading Permit Issuance 72. Vehicle Parking. All on-site vehicle parking spaces shall conform to the following: a. All parking spaces shall be double striped using 4” white lines set 2 feet apart in accordance with City Standards and DMC 8.76.070.A.17. b. 12”-wide concrete step-out curbs shall be constructed at each parking space where one or both sides abut a landscaped area or planter. c. Where wheel stops are shown, individual 6’ long wheel stops shall be provided within each parking space in accordance with City Standards. d. A minimum 2’ radius shall be provided at curb returns and curb intersections where applicable. e. Parking stalls next to walls, fences and obstructions to vehicle door opening shall be an additional 4’ in width per DMC 8.76.070.A.16. f. Landscaped strips adjacent to parking stalls shall be unobstructed in order to allow for a minimum 2-foot vehicular overhang at front of vehicles. PW Grading Permit Issuance 73. Signing and Striping Plan. A Traffic Signing and Striping Plan showing all existing and proposed signing and striping within public streets, on-site private streets, parking lots and drive aisles, shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. PW Grading Permit or Encroachment Permit Issuance 74. Project signs. All proposed project monument signs shall be placed on private property. Signs should be located outside of any easement areas unless specifically approved by the City Engineer. Any signage allowed to be located in an easement is subject to removal and replacement at the expense of the Developer/property owner if required by the easement holder. PW Grading Permit Issuance Public Works – Project Specific Conditions 75. Landscape Features within Public Right-of-Way. The Developer shall enter into an “Agreement for Long Term Encroachment for Landscape Features” with the City to require the homeowner’s association/commercial owner’s association/property owner to maintain the landscape and decorative features within public right-of-way including frontage landscaping, decorative pavements and special features (i.e. walls, portals, benches, shade arbors, storm water treatment facilities, etc.). The Agreement shall identify the ownership of the special features and maintenance responsibilities. The HOA, COA, or property owner will be responsible for maintaining the surface of all decorative pavements including restoration required as the result of utility repairs. PW Final Map 16 76. Public Street Improvements. Developer shall construct all street improvements on Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road, Brannigan Street, Central Parkway and Gleason Drive as generally shown on the Vesting Tentative Map, and as approved by the City Engineer. Required roadway and utility improvements shall include, but are not limited to, the installation of sidewalk, curb and gutter, curb ramps, driveways, roadway widening, drainage structures, street trees, utilities, landscaping, irrigation, bio-retention planters, fire hydrants, signal modifications and installations, median modifications and installations, slurry seal and/or grind and overlay of existing roadway pavement, signing and striping and restriping of existing pavement. PW Final Map or 1st Building Permit for each Planning Area 77. Brannigan Street – South of Dublin Boulevard. Developer shall construct all street improvements to develop Brannigan Street as a public street south of Dublin Boulevard as generally shown on the Vesting Tentative Map plans. Required roadway and utility improvements shall include, but are not limited to, the installation of sidewalk, curb and gutter, curb ramps, driveways, drainage structures, street trees, utilities, landscaping, irrigation, bio-retention planters, fire hydrants, signal modifications, removal of existing asphalt berm, slurry seal and/or grind and overlay of existing pavement, signing and striping. PW Final Map or 1st Building Permit for Planning Area PA-1 78. Brannigan Street – South of Dublin Boulevard - Right- of-Way Acquisition. In accordance with the Development Agreement, the Developer shall construct the improvements necessary for an extension of Brannigan Street that would extend south of Dublin Boulevard and shall acquire the necessary land title and interests from the adjoining property owner. Upon submittal of the first Final Map that requires Brannigan Street, south of Dublin Boulevard, to be improved, the Developer shall provide evidence that the necessary right- of-way or easements have been obtained. If the Developer is unable, through the use of diligent efforts as specified in the Development Agreement and in accordance with Government Code Section (Subdivision Map Act) 66462.5, to obtain the necessary right-of-way or easements, the City shall exercise its power of eminent domain to obtain the necessary right-of-way or easements, and the Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City. All costs associated with acquisition shall be the obligation of the Developer. PW Final Map or 1st Building Permit for Planning Area PA-1 79. Private Street and Common Area Improvements. Developer shall construct all common area improvements, private streets, private alleys and all other site and subdivision improvements owned or maintained by the homeowners’ association, commercial owner’s association and/or property owner as generally shown on the Vesting Tentative Map, and as approved by the City Engineer. Such improvements shall be included in the PW Final Map or 1st Building Permit for each Planning Area 17 Tract Improvement Agreement for the Final Map on each Planning Area. Required on-site and subdivision improvements include, but are not limited to, sidewalks, curb and gutter, pavement areas, curb ramps, driveways, parking and circulation in and at structures; enhanced street paving; trails; parking spaces; street lights and appurtenances; drainage facilities; utilities; landscape and irrigation facilities; open space landscaping; stormwater treatment facilities; striping and signage; and fire hydrants. 80. Bus Stops. Bus stops and pullouts shall be installed on Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road, Central Parkway and Gleason Drive at the locations generally shown on the Vesting Tentative Map, and as approved by the City Engineer and Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA). Bus stops installed on Dublin Boulevard shall be provided with a shelter with seating, lighting, and hardwired electrical access, a trash receptacle and bus stop sign stand. All other bus stops are to be provided with benches and bus stop signs only. PW Final Map or 1st Building Permit for each Planning Area 81. Vacation of Northside Drive. The vacation of Northside Drive is subject to the terms of the Development Agreement. PW Final Map for Planning Area PA-1 82. Gated Access to PA-2. Design and location of pedestrian and vehicular access gate(s) to Planning Area PA-2 (Tract 8449) shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, Community Development Director and the Fire Department. PW Final Map for Planning Area PA-2 83. Curb Ramps within Public Right-of-Way. The number, location and layout of all curb ramps shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer with the Improvement Plans submitted for the site. All curb ramps shall be designed and constructed to provide direct access to marked crosswalks or unmarked crossings and shall be oriented such that they are aligned and parallel to the marked crosswalk or unmarked crossing they are intended to serve. Curb ramps serving more than one marked crosswalk or unmarked crossing are not allowed, unless specifically approved by the City Engineer on a case by case basis. Curb ramp locations shall shall provide for the full width of all marked crosswalks to be clear of obstructions. A reduction in standard public street minimum curb return radii will be allowed to the extent deemed feasible by the City Engineer in order to facilitate curb ramp installation. Existing facilities such as (but not limited to) traffic signal poles, street lights, traffic signal loops, fire hydrants, utility boxes and vaults, storm drain inlets, signs, and striping my require relocation in order to accommodate the curb ramp and crosswalk installations on existing improved streets. PW Final Map or 1st Building Permit for each Planning Area 84. Pavement Structural Sections. Asphalt concrete pavement sections within the public right-of-way shall be designed using the Caltrans method for flexible pavement design (including the asphalt factor of safety), an assumed R-Value of 5 and the following traffic indices: Dublin PW Final Map or 1st Building Permit for each Planning Area 18 Boulevard and Tassajara Road, TI=11; Central Parkway, Gleason Drive and Brannigan Street (south of Dublin Blvd.), TI=9; Brannigan Street (north of Dublin Blvd.), TI=7. Final pavement sections shall be based on the actual R-Value obtained from pavement subgrade. 85. Street Restoration. A pavement treatment, such as slurry seal, grind and overlay, or overlay will be required within the public streets fronting and adjacent to the site as determined by the Public Works Department. The type and limits of the pavement treatment shall be determined by the City Engineer based upon the number and proximity of trench cuts, extent of frontage and median improvements, extent of pavement striping and restriping, condition of existing pavement, excessive wear and tear/damage due to construction traffic, etc. PW Final Map or 1st Building Permit for each Planning Area 86. Dublin Boulevard, Central Parkway and Gleason Drive Pavement Overlay. The existing unfinished asphalt pavement section on Dublin Boulevard, Central Parkway and Gleason Drive, between Brannigan Street and Tassajara Road, shall be overlaid as necessary to increase the existing pavement section to the design finished asphalt pavement thickness consistent with the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee program requirements for Segments 10, 18 and 20. PW Final Map or 1st Building Permit for each Planning Area 87. Tassajara Road Curb Grades. New curb grades along the Tassajara Road project frontage widening shall be designed to conform to the design pavement grades and street cross-slope as shown on the original improvement plans for Tassajara Road. PW Final Map or 1st Building Permit for each Planning Area 88. Private Maintenance of Public Improvements. The following public improvements are to be privately maintained by the adjacent homeowner’s association/commercial owner’s association/property owner as applicable: Public street improvements along the project frontage from back of curb to right-of-way line. PW On-going 89. Street Trees. Street trees, irrigation and street grates along project frontages shall be in conformance with the City of Dublin Streetscape Master Plan, unless otherwise modified by the Site Development Review Plans. PW Final Map or 1st Building Permit for each Planning Area 90. Stormwater Source Control. “No Dumping Drains to Bay” storm drain medallions per City Standard shall be placed on all public and private storm drain inlets. The project shall incorporate all other applicable stormwater source control measures as detailed in the City of Dublin’s Stormwater Requirements Checklist. PW Occupancy or Acceptance of Improvements 91. Soils Report. The Developer shall submit a detailed soils report prepared by a qualified engineer, registered with the State of California. The required report shall include recommendations regarding pavement sections for all project streets including all perimeter streets and internal private driveways and parking lots. Grading operations shall be in accordance with recommendations contained in the required soils report and grading shall be supervised PW 1st Final Map or 1st Building Permit 19 by an engineer registered in the State of California to do such work. 92. Geotechnical Engineer Review and Approval. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall be retained to review all final grading plans and specifications. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall approve all grading plans prior to City approval. PW 1st Final Map or 1st Building Permit 93. CLOMR-F. A FEMA Conditional Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (CLOMR-F) shall be provided to the City for Planning Area PA-1 (Tract 8440) stating that the portions of that parcel that will elevated by fill will not be inundated by the base flood if the fill is placed as proposed on the Grading Plan. A final Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (LOMA-F) will be required and shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of any Permit within Planning Area PA-1. PW Final Map or Issuance of Grading Permit on Planning Area PA-1 94. Phasing of Grading. Grading within Planning Areas PA- 1 (Tract 8440) and PA-4 (Tract 8452, north of Gleason Drive) may be phased as necessary to avoid disturbance of the delineated wetland areas until the necessary jurisdictional permits are obtained while permitting grading to proceed on other portions of the sites outside of the wetland areas. Phased grading to avoid disturbance of wetlands is subject to the approval and conditions of the jurisdictional agencies. PW Issuance of Grading Permit of Planning Areas PA-1 or PA-4 95. Dust Control/Street Sweeping. The Developer shall provide adequate dust control measures at all times during the grading and hauling operations. All trucks hauling export and import materials shall be provided with tarp cover at all times. Spillage of haul materials and mud- tracking on the haul routes shall be prevented at all times. Developer shall be responsible for sweeping of streets within, surrounding and adjacent to the project if it is determined that the tracking or accumulation of material on the streets is due to its construction activities. PW During Grading and Site Work 96. Underground Obstructions. Prior to demolition, excavation and grading on any portion of the project site, all underground obstructions (i.e. debris, septic tanks, fuel tanks, barrels, chemical waste) shall be identified and removed pursuant to Federal, State and local regulations and subject to the review and approval by the City. Excavations shall be properly backfilled using structural fill, subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. PW Issuance of Grading Permit 97. Resource Agency Permits. Prior to the start of any grading of the site as necessary, permits shall be obtained from the US Army Corps of Engineers, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service for the grading or alteration of wetland areas within the site, if applicable. The project shall be modified as needed to comply with the conditions of the permits. PW Issuance of Grading Permit 98. Lighting. The Developer shall prepare a photometric plan PW Final Map or 1st 20 for the public street and site lighting to demonstrate that the minimum 1.0 foot candle lighting level is provided in accordance with the City of Dublin’s requirements, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Complete photometric data including high, average and minimum values for illuminance and uniformity ratio shall be provided. The photometric plan shall show lighting levels which take into consideration poles, low walls and other obstructions. Exterior lighting shall be provided within the surface parking lots and on buildings and shall be of a design and placement so as not to cause glare onto adjoining properties, businesses or to vehicular traffic. Lighting used after daylight hours shall be adequate to provide for security needs. The parking lot lights shall be designed to eliminate any pockets of high and low illuminated areas. Building Permit for each Planning Area 99. Lighting Inspection. Prior to Occupancy, the Applicant shall request an inspection of the lighting levels throughout the site to determine if lighting is sufficient. If additional lights are required to be installed to meet the 1.0 foot-candle requirement, or for other safety or operational reasons, the Applicant shall do so prior to Occupancy. PW Occupancy 100. Waste Enclosures. Developer shall coordinate the waste enclosure locations and sizes with the City to ensure adequate capacity to serve the future residential, restaurant and retail tenants. Waste enclosures shall meet all requirements set forth in the Dublin Municipal Code (DMC), Chapter 7.98 and in the Solid Waste Requirements, Waste Handling Standards, and Waste Enclosure Requirements Checklist on the City’s website at the following link: http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/1932/Development-Resources PW Final Map or 1st Building Permit for each Planning Area 101. Bicycle Parking. Developer shall install the bike lockers and bike racks in accordance with California Green Building Standards Code requirements. Locations of the bicycle parking shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. PW 1st Building Permit for each Planning Are 102. Surface Slopes. Pavement surface slopes in parking lots and drive aisles shall be a minimum of 0.5% and a maximum of 5% (unless otherwise required at parking spaces for the disabled and at ramps at the parking structure and loading dock). Exceptions may be considered by the City Engineer to account for unusual design conditions. PW Final Map or 1st Building Permit for each Planning Area 103. Valley Link Project. The Developer shall dedicate right- of-way along the southern boundary of Planning Area PA- 1 (Tract 8440) to accommodate any known planned future improvements by the Valley Link project and/or Caltrans in the manner and form determined by the City Engineer. Developer shall ensure that buildings and other permanent improvements are set back from the right-of- way in the event that it is needed in the future. PW Final Map for Planning Area PA-1 104. Substantial Conformance. The Final Maps shall be substantially in conformance with the Approved Vesting PW Final Maps 21 Tentative Map, unless otherwise modified by the conditions contained herein. 105. Final Map Recordation. The Final Maps for Tract 8440, Tract 8449 and Tract 8452 shall record prior to the issuance of the first building permit within the associated planning area. PW 1st Building Permit within Each Planning Area 106. Public Access Easements. The Developer shall dedicate Public Access Easements (PAE) over the private streets, private alleys and drive aisles as generally shown on the Vesting Tentative Map and as required by the City Engineer. PW Final Map 107. Utility Easements. Public Utility Easements (PUE), Sanitary Sewer Easements (SSE), Private Storm Drain Easements (PSDE), Water Line Easements (WLE) and Dublin San Ramon Services District Easements (DSRSD) shall be established over all private streets and at other locations within the subdivisions as appropriate. PW Final Map 108. Sidewalk Easement. A Sidewalk Easement (SWE) shall be dedicated along the project’s Dublin Boulevard, Central Parkway and Gleason Drive frontages as generally shown on the Vesting Tentative Map and as required by the City Engineer. PW Final Map 109. Easements Between Parcels. Reciprocal access and utility easements and joint use parking easements between the lots within PA-1 (Tract 8440) shall be provided as required. The easements shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. PW Final Map for Planning Area PA-1 110. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The respective Homeowners and Commercial Association shall be formed by recordation of a declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions to govern use and maintenance of the landscape features, decorative pavement and other features within the public right of way contained in the Agreement for Long Term Encroachments; all open space and common area landscaping; and all stormwater treatment measures. Said declaration shall set forth the Association name, bylaws, rules and regulations. The CC&Rs shall also contain a provision that prohibits the amendment of those provisions of the CC&Rs requested by City without the City’s approval. The CC&Rs shall ensure that there is adequate provision for the maintenance, in good repair and on a regular basis, of all private streets, landscaping & irrigation; decorative pavements; fences/gates; walls; drainage and stormwater treatment facilities; lighting; signs and other related improvements. The CC&Rs shall also contain all other items required by these conditions. The Developer shall submit a copy of the CC&Rs document to the City for review. PL, PW Final Map(s) Approval 111. CC&Rs. Language shall be included in the CC&Rs for PA- 2 (Tract 8449) that restricts the community to residents 55 year and older. Amendments to this restriction shall be agreed to by the City prior to any changes. PW Final Map for Planning Area PA-2 22 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of June, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ City Clerk Due to the size of this document, please use link below to view Attachment 6. Vesting Tentative Map ORDINANCE NO. xx - 20 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND SCS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY RELATED TO THE AT DUBLIN PROJECT PLPA 2017-00061 (APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, and 985-0052-025) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. RECITALS A. A request has been made by SCS Development Company to enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Dublin for the property known as the At Dublin Project site, which 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 76.9 acre site; and B. The Applicant, Shea Properties in partnership with SCS Development Company, is requesting a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment , Planned Development Rezoning (Stage 1 and Stage 2), Vesting Tentative Map, a Street Vacation and a Development Agreement for the At Dublin Project. The proposed Project includes up to 566 residential units comprised of apartments, detached small-lot single-family homes and 55 and older age restricted single-family homes, up to 240,000 square feet of retail commercial development, and related infrastructure and landscape improvements. Requested land use approvals include General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezoning (Stage 1 and Stage 2), Vesting Tentative Map Nos. 8440, 8449 and 8452, a Street Vacation, and a Development Agreement, among other related actions. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the “At Dublin Project” or the “Project;” and 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; and D. Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated July 2018, a Final EIR dated October 2018, and an Errata dated January 2020, for the proposed Project, which reflected the City’s independent judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and E. The Draft EIR identified potentially significant environmental effects anticipated as a result of the Project such as, aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, no ise, and transportation, most of which can be substantially reduced through mitigation measures; and F. The Draft EIR was circulated for 45 days for public comment from July 6, 2018 to August 20, 2018. Comments received on the Draft EIR were reviewed and responded to, and the Final EIR (that contains the Response to Comments) dated October 2018 was prepared; and G. Following a public hearing on October 30, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 18-24, recommending denial of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments and the entirety of the Project, consisting of up to 665 residential units comprised of apartments, townhomes and detached small-lot single family homes and up to 400,500 sf of commercial, related infrastructure, a public park and landscape improvements, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and H. On November 20, 2018, following a request from the Applicant, the City Council continued the Project to an undetermined future date; and I. In October 2019, the Applicant submitted a revised Project in response to public comments, consisting of up to 566 residential units comprised of apartments, detached small -lot single family homes and 55 and older age restricted single-family homes, up to 240,000 square feet of retail commercial development, and related infrastructure and landscape improvements; and J. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, the City analyzed the revised Project and determined that there was no new significant information, or substantially more severe, significant environmental impact as a result of the revised Project, requiring recirculation of the EIR; and K. Following a public hearing on February 25, 2020, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 20-05, recommending denial of the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the At Dublin project based on traffic impacts, pedestrian and bicycle concerns, and the Project’s inconsistency with the longstanding vision for these parcels, namely less housing and more commercial/retail serving as a “town center” and “gateway to the city” with a walkable environment, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and L. A Staff Report, dated June 16, 2020 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the Development Agreement, for the City Council; and M. A public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement was held before the City Council on June 16, 2020, for which public notice was given as provided by law; and N. 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; and O. On June 16, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. xx-20 certifying the At Dublin Project EIR and adopting CEQA findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project; and P. The City Council did hear and use independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth. 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 At Dublin Project EIR; (e) the Staff Report; and (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: 1. 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 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. xx-20, amending the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, adopted by the City Council on June 16, 2020. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. The Development Agreement specifies the duration of the agreement, the permitted uses of the property, and the obligations of the Applicant. 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 The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement (Exhibit A to the Ordinance) and authorizes the City Manager to execute it. Section 4. RECORDATION Within ten (10) days after the Development Agreement is fully executed by all parties, the City Clerk shall submit the Agreement to the County Recorder for recordation. Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause the Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this _____ day of ______, 2020 by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _____________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ City Clerk 1 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 Recorder’s use DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND SCS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FOR THE AT DUBLIN PROJECT 2 THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this “Agreement” or this “Development Agreement”) is made and entered into for reference purposes on this day of , 2020, by and between the City of Dublin, a Municipal Corporation (hereafter “City”) and AWARD HOMES, INC., a California corporation (“Award Homes”), SCS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a California corporation (“SCS Development”), and SANTA CLARA VALLEY HOUSING GROUP, INC., a California corporation (“SCV Housing”) (Award Homes, SCS Development, and SCV Housing are collectively referred to herein as “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 Agreement as a “Party,” and are collectively referred to as “Parties.” RECITALS A. California Government Code §§ 65864 et seq. (“Development Agreement Statute”) and Chapter 8.56 of the Dublin Municipal Code (hereafter “Chapter 8.56”) authorize the City to enter into a Development 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. B. Developer owns certain real property (the “Property”) consisting of approximately 76.9 acres of land, as more particularly described in Exhibit A, Legal Description of Property, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. C. Developer has applied for, and City has approved, various land use approvals in connection with a mixed use project consisting of 240,000 square feet of commercial development and 566 residential units (the “Project”), including, without limitation, a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for the At Dublin Project (Resolution No. ____ adopted on _____, 2020), a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning and Development Plan for the At Dublin Project (Ord. No. ___ adopted by the City Council on ______, 2020), Vesting Tentative Maps 8440, 8449, and 8452 for the At Dublin Project (Resolution No. ___ adopted on ______, 2020), and this Agreement (approved by the DA Approving Ordinance (defined below)) (collectively the “Project Approvals”). D. City desires the timely, efficient, orderly and proper development of the Project. E. City and Developer have reached agreement and desire to express herein a Development Agreement that will facilitate development of the Project subject to conditions set forth herein. 3 F. City has undertaken, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., hereinafter “CEQA”), the required analysis of the environmental effects that would be caused by the Project and has determined those feasible mitigation measures which will eliminate, or reduce to an acceptable level, the adverse environmental impacts of the Project. The environmental effects of the proposed development of the Property were analyzed by the Final Environmental Impact Report (the “FEIR”) and Errata certified by City on ______________. City has also adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (the “MMRP”) to ensure that those mitigation measures incorporated as part of, or imposed on, the Project are enforced and completed. Those mitigation measures for which Developer is responsible are incorporated into, and required by, the Project Approvals. City also has adopted findings of fact and statements of overriding considerations for those adverse environmental impacts of the Project that may not or cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. G. City has given the required notice of its intention to adopt this Development Agreement and has conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to Government Code Section 65867 and Chapter 8.56. As required by Government Code Section 65867.5, City has found that the provisions of this Development Agreement and its purposes are consistent with the goals, policies, standards and land use designations specified in City’s General Plan. H. On __, the City of Dublin Planning Commission, the initial hearing body for purposes of development agreement review, recommended approval of this Development Agreement pursuant to Resolution No. ___. I. On , 2020, the City Council of the City of Dublin adopted Ordinance No. ___ approving this Development Agreement (the “DA Approving Ordinance”). The DA Approving Ordinance took effect on , 2020. NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing recitals and in consideration of the mutual promises, obligations and covenants herein contained, City and Developer agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Description of Property. The Property that is the subject of this Agreement is described in Exhibit A. Upon the City’s vacation of the Northside Drive PA1 Property (as defined in Section 8.1 herein) pursuant to Section 8.1, the Northside Drive PA1 Property automatically shall become part of the Property and City and Developer shall execute and record a Clarification (as defined in Section 9.4) of this Agreement in accordance with Section 9.4 to amend the legal description 4 of the Property attached hereto as Exhibit A to add such Northside Drive PA1 Property. 2. Interest of Developer. Developer has a legal interest in the Property in that it is the owner of the Property. 3. Relationship of City and Developer. It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by the City and Developer and that neither City nor Developer is an agent of the other. The City and Developer hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making the City and Developer joint venturers or partners. 4. Effective Date and Term 4.1 Effective Date. The effective date of this Agreement (“Effective Date”) is the date upon which the DA Approving Ordinance takes effect. 4.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue for five years thereafter, unless said term is otherwise extended or terminated as provided in this Agreement (as so extended or terminated, the “Term”). In the event that any third-party lawsuit is filed challenging the City’s issuance of the Project Approvals or its compliance with CEQA, the Term of this Agreement shall be automatically extended for a duration equal to the time from the filing of such lawsuit to the entry of a final order dismissing or otherwise finally terminating such lawsuit, which duration shall include any appeals (“Litigation Extension”). If required by one of the parties, the other party shall enter into a Clarification pursuant to Section 9.4 below memorializing the length of such Litigation Extension. This Agreement shall terminate with respect to any for sale residential lot and such lot shall be released and no longer subject to this Agreement, without the execution or recordation of any further document, when a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the building(s) on such lot. 4.3 Optional Extension. Prior to the expiration of the Term of this Development Agreement, as provided in Section 4.2, Developer may extend the Term of the Development Agreement. To do so, Developer shall give City written notice at least 90 days prior to the termination date of the Development Agreement. At the time Developer provides such notice, Developer shall make a payment to City in the amount of $200,000 (adjusted for inflation from the Effective Date using the CPI -U, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area) for each year of extension requested under this provision. Upon receipt of the notice and the contribution, the City Manager 5 shall approve the extension and shall notify the Developer in writing that the Term of the Development Agreement has been automatically extended for an additional time period equal to the time period requested by Developer under this provision, commencing on the date the Development Agreement would otherwise have terminated; provided Developer may exercise its option to extend the Development Agreement no more than five times, for a maximum total Term of the Development Agreement of ten years (plus any extensions pursuant to Sections 4.2 or 4.3 hereof). Provided there is an extension period remaining, Developer may request the extension for multiple years and provide the payment due for each year’s extension. Each extension shall apply to the entire Property upon payment of one $200,000 (as adjusted in accordance with this Section 4.3) per year extension payment, even if the Property is owned by multiple Developers at that time. 4.4 Term of Project Approvals. The term of any Project Approvals (as defined in Recital C) for the Property or any portion thereof, specifically including without limitation the Vesting Tentative Tract Map shall be extended automatically for the Term of this Agreement. 4.4.1 Termination of Agreement. In the event that this Agreement is terminated prior to the expiration of the Term, the term of any Project Approval and the vesting period for any final subdivision map approved as a Project Approval shall be the term otherwise applicable to the approval. 5. Vested Rights/Use of the Property/Applicable Law/Processing 5.1 Right to Develop. Developer shall have the vested right to develop the Project on the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of (i) this Agreement, the Project Approvals (as and when issued), and any amendments to any of them as shall, from time to time, be approved pursuant to this Agreement, and (ii) the City’s ordinances, codes, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing the development, construction, subdivision, occupancy and use of the Project and the Property including, without limitation, the General Plan, the Dublin Municipal Code, and the Specific Plan, the permitted uses of the Property, density and intensity of use of the Property and the maximum height, bulk and size of proposed buildings, and the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes that are in force and effect on the Effective Date of this Agreement (collectively, “Applicable Law”). In exercising its discretion when acting upon subsequent project approvals, City shall apply the Applicable Law as the controlling body of law (within which Applicable Law such discretion shall be exercised). Upon approval by the City, the Site Development Review approval for the Project (“Project SDR”) shall become a Project Approval and shall become part of 6 the law Developer is vested into under this Agreement without the need to amend this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything to the contrary herein, any amendment to the Project Approvals shall not become part of the law Developer is vested into under this Agreement unless an additional amendment of this Agreement is entered into between Developer and City in accordance with this Agreement. In the event that such amendments to the Project Approvals are sought for any distinct portion of the Property or Project, such amendments shall not require amendment of this Agreement with respect to any other portion of the Property or Project, except to the extent set forth in such amendment. 5.2 Fees, Exactions, Dedications. The City shall not apply to the Project any development impact fee or any application, processing or inspection fee (collectively, “Fees”) that the City first enacts after the Effective Date. Except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement, City and Developer agree that this Agreement does not limit the City’s discretion to impose or require (a) payment of any fees in connection with the issuance of any subsequent project approvals as necessary for purposes of mitigating environmental and other impacts of the Project, (b) dedication of any land, or (c) construction of any public improvement or facilities (collectively “Exactions”). Except as specifically provided herein, nothing in this Agreement shall limit the City’s ability to impose existing development impact Fees at rates that are increased beyond the amounts in effect on the Effective Date or limit Developer’s ability to challenge any such increases under state or local law. 5.3 Construction Codes. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.1 above, to the extent Applicable Law includes requirements under the state or locally adopted building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical and fire codes (collectively the “Codes”), the Codes included shall be those in force and effect at the time Developer submits its application for the relevant building, grading, or other construction permits to City. In the event of a conflict between such Codes and the Project Approvals, the Project Approvals shall, to the maximum extent allowed by law, prevail. For construction of public infrastructure, the Codes applicable to such construction shall be those in force and effect at the time of execution of an improvement agreement between City and Developer pursuant to Chapter 9.16 of the Dublin Municipal Code. 5.4 New Rules and Regulations. During the Term of this Agreement, the City may apply new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies of the City to the Property which were not in forc e and effect on the Effective Date only to the extent they are not in conflict with the vested rights granted by the Applicable Law, the Project Approvals or this Agreement. In addition to any other conflicts that may occur, each of the following new or m odified 7 ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or official policies shall be considered a per se conflict with the Applicable Law: 5.4.1 Any application or requirement of such new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or official policies that would (i) cause or impose a substantial financial burden on, or materially delay development of the Property as otherwise contemplated by this Agreement or the Project Approvals, (ii) frustrate in a more than insignificant way the intent or purpose of the Project Approvals or preclude compliance therewith including, without limitation, by preventing or imposing limits or controls in the rate, timing, phasing or sequencing of development of the Project; (iii) prevent or limit the processing or procuring of subsequent project approvals; or (iv) reduce the density or intensity of use of the Property as a whole, or otherwise requiring any reduction in the square footage of, or total number of, proposed buildings, structures and other improvements, in a manner that is inconsistent with or more restrictive than the limitations included in this Agreement and the Project Approvals; and/or 5.4.2 If any of such ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or official policies do not have general (City-wide) applicability. 5.5 Moratorium Not Applicable. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, if a City ordinance, resolution, policy, directive, or other measure is enacted or becomes effective, whether by action of the City or by initiative, and if it imposes a building moratorium which affects all or any part of the Project, City agrees that such ordinance, resolution or other measure shall not apply to the Project, the Property, this Agreement or the Project Approvals unless the building moratorium is imposed as part of a declaration of a local emergency or state of emergency as defined in Government Code section 8558, provided that to the extent a moratorium applies to all or any part of the Project then the Term shall automatically be extended for a period of time equal to the period of the moratorium. 5.6 Revised Application Fees. Notwithstanding section 5.2, any existing application, processing and inspection fees that are revised during the Term of this Agreement shall apply to the Project provided that (1) such fees have general applicability and are consistent with State law limitations that processing fees not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which they are charged; (2) the application of such fees to the Property is prospective; and (3) the application of such fees would not prevent, impose a substantial financial burden on, or materially delay development in accordance with this Agreement. By so agreeing, 8 Developer does not waive its rights to challenge the legality of any such application, processing and/or inspection fees. 5.7 New Taxes. This Agreement shall not prohibit the application of any subsequently enacted city-wide taxes to the Project provided that (1) the application of such taxes to the Property is prospective, and (2) the application of such taxes would not prevent development in accordance with this Agreement. By so agreeing, Developer does not waive its rights to challenge the legality of any such taxes, facially or as applied to its Project or Property, or to claim exemption from any taxes to the extent allowed by law. 5.8 Development of the Project; Phasing, Timing. Since the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 465, that the failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over such parties’ agreement, it is the Parties’ intent to cure that deficiency by acknowledging and providing that this Agreement contains no requirements that Developer must initiate or complete any action, including without limitation, development of the Project within any period of time set by City. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to create nor shall it be construed to create any affirmative development obligations to develop the Project, or liability in Developer under this Agreement if the development fails to occur. It is the intention of this provision that Developer be able to develop the Property in accordance with its own time schedules and the Project Approvals. 5.9 Project Phasing. The Project is divided for planning and phasing purposes into planning areas (“Planning Areas” or “PA s”): PA 1, PA 2, PA 3, and PA- 4, as depicted on Exhibit C, Planning Areas. The Phasing Plan in the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan (section 4) imposes restrictions on the issuance of permits for the Project to ensure that the residential portions of the Project do not wholly develop in advance of the retail/commercial portions (“PD Phasing Requirements”). Notwithstanding Section 5.8, Developer agrees to comply with the PD Phasing Requirements. 5.10 Processing. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to limit the authority or obligation of City to hold necessary public hearings, nor to lim it the discretion of City or any of its officers or officials with regard to subsequent project approvals that require the exercise of discretion by City, provided that such discretion shall be exercised consistent with the vested rights granted by this Agreement, the Applicable Law and the Project Approvals. 9 6. Community Benefit. 6.1 Community Benefit Payment. Developer will make a cash contribution to the City as a Community Benefit (the “Community Benefit Payment”). The amount of the Community Benefit Payment is dependent on the Developer’s election under subsection 7.3.1 to either construct 40 moderate income units or pay a fee in lieu thereof: (a) $3,200,000 if elects to construct the units and (b) $3,600,000 if the Developer elects to pay fees in lieu of constructing units. The Community Benefit Payment shall be paid in equal installments with the first installment due prior to the issuance of the first building permit for a residential unit in the project (the “First Community Benefit Payment Date”) and the second installment being paid within one year after the First Community Benefit Payment Date. Each Community Benefit Payment in the amounts set forth above shall apply to the entire Property even if the Property is owned by multiple Developers at that time. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, Developer agrees that, should it fail to make any payments when due, the City may withhold any residential permits or approvals within the Project until the payment or payments have been made, even if the rights to those permits and approvals are then held by Developer’s successors. 7. Affordable Housing. 7.1 Units Required by Regulations. The Project includes 566 residential units. Pursuant to the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Chapter 8.68 of the Dublin Municipal Code) (the “Regulations”), developers of more than 20 residential units are required to set aside 12.5% of the units in the project as affordable units as specified. Given the mix of for-sale and rental residential units in the Project, the Developer’s inclusionary zoning obligation is 71 units broken down as follows: 40 moderate income units, 22 low income, 9 very low income. 7.2 Alternative Compliance Authorized. Under the Regulations, certain exceptions permit developers to satisfy the obligation other than through on- site construction. For instance, part of this obligation can be satisfied through the payment of a fee in-lieu of construction of units. In addition, developers can satisfy their affordable housing obligations by, among other mechanisms, obtaining City Council approval of an alternative method of complia nce that the City Council finds meet the purposes of the Regulations. 7.3 Alternative Compliance for the Project. Developer shall satisfy its 71-unit affordable housing obligation through the following “alternative method of compliance” under Section 8.68.040.E of the Regulations: 10 7.3.1 Developer, at its election, will either provide 40 moderate income units (either for-sale or rental, or a combination thereof) on- or offsite or pay a fee in-lieu thereof, either of which shall satisfy Developer’s obligation for 40 moderate income units. Developer shall make such election prior to the issuance of the first residential building permit in the Project. 7.3.2 The City has the transferrable right to acquire a 1.33 acre parcel referred to variously as 6541 and 6543 Regional Street and Alameda County Assessor’s Parcel No. 941-1500-25 (“Affordable Housing Parcel”) at a nominal price not to exceed $1000. Developer agrees to do either of the following, either of which shall satisfy Developer’s obligation for 22 low income and 9 very low income units: (a) purchase the right to acquire the Affordable Housing Parcel from the City at Affordable Housing Parcel’s fair market value and either (i) acquire the site and dedicate the Affordable Housing Parcel to a non-profit housing developer or (ii) transfer the right to acquire the Affordable Housing Parcel to a non-profit housing developer. or (b) in the event that the City has acquired title to the Affordable Housing Parcel, pay the City the Affordable Housing Parcel’s fair market value. The Parties agree that the fair market value of the Affordable Housing Parcel is Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000). Developer shall purchase the right to acquire the Affordable Housing Parcel by making a payment of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) to the City within 180 days after the Effective Date (the “Affordable Housing Payment”). The due date for payment of the Affordable Housing Payment shall be tolled for the period of any Litigation Extension pursuant to Section 4.2. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, Developer agrees that, should it fail to make the Affordable Housing Payment when due, City may withhold any residential permits or approvals within the Project until the payment is made, even if the rights to those permits and approvals are then held by its successors. 11 Prior to the issuance of the first residential building permit in the Project, Developer shall either transfer ownership of the Affordable Housing Parcel or the right to acquire the Affordable Housing Parcel to a non-profit housing developer. Any such transfer shall be for no more than a nominal price. For the purposes of this Agreement, a “nominal price” shall be any sales price that is $1000 or less (not including, and not limiting, the purchaser’s share of escrow fees, title insurance costs, transfer taxes, prorated taxes and assessments and other customary closing costs). 7.3.3 Satisfaction of City Requirements. Through its approval of this Agreement, the City Council hereby finds that the “alternative method of compliance” in this section 7.3 meets the purposes of the Regulations and will promote the City’s affordability and Housing Element goals. 7.4 Additional Market-Rate Units. Any residential development on the Property above 566 units shall be subject to the requirements of the Regulations, notwithstanding the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations limitation to projects of 20 or more units. 8. Dedications; Vacations. 8.1 Northside Drive. As part of this Agreement, the City shall take the necessary actions to vacate Northside Drive. Provided that City has vacated Northside Drive, Developer shall acquire the portion Northside Drive within Planning Area 1 (the “Northside Drive PA1 Property”), as depicted in Exhibit D, from the City for its “Fair Market Value” (determined in accordance with Section 8.3.1 herein), prior to the issuance of a building permit for Planning Area 1. 8.1.1 Determination of Fair Market Value. City shall have the Northside Drive PA1 Property appraised and deliver to Developer a written notice (the “Fair Market Value Notice”) setting forth the proposed fair market value of the Northside Drive PA1 Property based on the appraisal (the “Fair Market Value”). Developer, within ten business days after Developer’s receipt of the Fair Market Value Notice, shall either (i) deliver to City written notice (the “Acceptance Notice”) that Developer accepts the Fair Market Value set forth in the Fair Market Value Notice, or (ii) if Developer disagrees with City’s determination of the Fair Market Value, deliver to City written notice of rejection (the “Rejection Notice”). If Developer fails to provide City with an Acceptance Notice or Rejection Notice within such ten business day period, Developer shall be deemed to have delivered an Acceptance Notice. 12 (b) If Developer delivers a Rejection Notice, Developer and City shall meet and confer in good faith regarding the Fair Market Value. In the event Developer delivers a Rejection Notice and the Parties are not able to agree in writing on the Fair Market Value by the date that is twenty business days after City’s delivery of the Fair Market Value Notice, then Developer may elect to prepare its own appraisal. (c) Upon completion of its appraisal, Developer shall deliver City a written notice setting forth the proposed fair market value (“Developer’s Fair Market Value Notice”). If the Parties are not able to agree in writing on the Fair Market Value by the date that is twenty business days after the delivery of the Developer’s Fair Market Value Notice, then within five business days the Parties shall attempt to agree on an appraiser to determine the Fair Market Value. If the Parties are unable to agree in that time, then each Party shall designate an appraiser within five days thereafter. Should either Party fail to so designate an appraiser within that time, then the appraiser designated by the other Party shall determine the Fair Market Value. Should each of the Parties timely designate an appraiser, then the two appraisers so designated shall appoint a third appraiser who shall, acting alone, determine the Fair Market Value. Any third party appraiser designated hereunder shall have an M.A.I. certification or equivalent with not less than 5 years’ experience in the valuation of commercial property in Alameda County, California. (d) Within five business days following the selection of the appraiser, Developer and City shall each submit in writing to the appraiser its determination of the Fair Market Value (respectively, the “Developer Determination” and the “City Determination”). Should either Party fail timely to submit its Fair Market Value determination, then the determination of the other Party shall be conclusive and binding on the Parties. The appraiser shall not disclose to either party the Fair Market Value determination of the other party until the expiration of that five business day period or, if sooner, the appraiser’s receipt of both the Developer Determination and the City Determination. (e) Within twenty days following the selection of the appraiser and such appraiser’s receipt of the Developer Determination and the City Determination, the appraiser shall determine whether the Fair Market Value determined by Developer or by City more accurately reflects the fair market value of the property. Accordingly, either the Developer Determination or the City Determination shall be selected by the appraiser as the Fair Market Value. At any time before the decision of the appraiser is rendered, either Party may, by written notice to the other Party, accept the Fair Market Value submitted by the other Party, 13 in which event such value shall be deemed adopted as the agreed Fair Market Value. The fees of the appraiser(s) shall be shared equally by the Parties. 8.2 Brannigan Extension. The Project Approvals require Developer to construct an extension of Brannigan Street that would extend south of Dublin Boulevard (the “Brannigan Extension”) and acquire the necessary land title and interests from the adjoining property owner. Government Code section 66462.5 (“Section 66462.5”) provides that, under circumstances in which neither the City nor the Developer has the necessary property interests to complete an improvement required by the tentative map conditions, the City shall either (a) require Developer to enter into an agreement that requires the completion of the improvement at such time as it has acquired the interests or (b) acquire the necessary interests within 120 days of filing the map or waive the condition requiring the improvement. Developer desires more certainty regarding when the improvements will be completed, and the City desires that a diligent, good-faith effort be made by the Developer to acquire the necessary interests with the agreement of the adjacent property owner. Accordingly, the City agrees, upon Developer’s demonstration of such diligent, good faith efforts to the satisfaction of the City Manager, to commence the process described under Section 66462.5 within 90 days of providing such evidence to the City Manager. All costs associated with acquisition shall be the obligation of Developer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event of acquisition of the Brannigan Extension right-of-way by City through negotiation or settlement (rather than by final judgment in an eminent domain action), City shall not pay more than ten percent (10%) above the fair market value of the Brannigan Extension right-of-way (determined in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 8.1.1 herein) without Developer’s prior written consent, in Developer’s sole discretion. 9. Amendment or Cancellation. 9.1 Modification Because of Conflict with State or Federal Laws. The Project and Property shall be subject to state and federal laws and regulations and this Agreement does not create any vested right in state and federal laws and regulations in effect on the Effective Date. In the event that state or federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement or require changes in plans, maps or permits approved by the City, the parties shall meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to modify this Agreement to comply with such federal or state law or regulation. Any such amendment or suspension of the Agreement shall be subject to approval by the City Council (in accordance with 14 Chapter 8.56). Each Party agrees to extend to the other its prompt and reasonable cooperation in so modifying this Agreement or approved plans. 9.2 Amendment of Development Agreement by Mutual Consent . This Agreement may be amended in writing from time to time by mutual consent of the Parties hereto and in accordance with the procedures of the Development Agreement Statute and Chapter 8.56. Review and approval of an amendment to this Development Agreement shall be strictly limited to consideration of only those provisions to be added or modified. No amendment, modification, waiver or change to this Development Agreement or any provision hereof shall be effective for any purpose unless specifically set forth in a writing that expressly refers to this Development Agreement and signed by the duly authorized representatives of both Parties. 9.2.1 Partial Amendment. When a Party seeking such an amendment owns or has an equitable right to only a portion of the whole of the Property (“Portion”), then such Party may only seek amendment of this Agreement as directly relates to the Portion, and the Party owning any other Portion shall not be required or entitled to be a signatory or to consent to an amendment that affects only another Party's Portion. 9.3 Amendments. Any amendments to this Agreement which relate to (a) the Term; (b) the permitted uses of the Property as provided in paragraph 5.1; (c) provisions for “significant” reservation or dedication of land; (d) conditions, terms, restrictions or requirements for subsequent discretionary actions; (e) an increase in the density or intensity of use of the overall Project; (f) the maximum height or size of proposed buildings; or (g) monetary contributions by Developer as provided in this Agreement, shall be deemed an “Amendment” and shall require notice or public hearing before the Planning Commission and the City Council before the Parties may execute an amendment hereto. The City’s Public Works Director shall determine whether a reservation or dedication is “significant” in the context of the overall Project. 9.4 Clarifications. If and when, from time to time, during the Term of this Agreement, City and Developer agree refinements and clarifications are necessary or appropriate with respect to the details of performance of City and Developer hereunder, City and Developer shall effectuate such clarifications through letter agreements (each, a “Clarification”) approved by City and Developer, which, after execution, shall be attached hereto as addenda and become a part hereof, and may be further clarified from time to time as necessary with future approval by City and Developer. No such Clarification shall constitute an amendment to this 15 Agreement requiring public notice or hearing. The City Manager or his or her designee shall have the authority to determine on behalf of City whether a requested clarification is of such a character to constitute an Amendment subject to Section 9.3 above or a Clarification subject to this Section 9.4. The City Manager shall have the authority to review, approve, and execute Clarifications to this Agreement provided that such Clarifications are not Amendments. 9.5 Cancellation by Mutual Consent. Except as otherwise permitted herein, this Agreement may be canceled in whole or in part only by the mutual consent of the parties or their successors in interest, in accordance with the provisions of the Development Agreement Statute and Chapter 8.56. Any fees paid pursuant to this Agreement prior to the date of cancellation shall be retained by the City. 10. Annual Review. 10.1 Review Date. The annual review date for this Agreement shall be between July 15 and August 15, 2021, and thereafter between each July 15 and August 15 during the Term. Review shall be conducted in accordance with Section 8.56.140 of Chapter 8.56 and the provisions of this Section 11. 10.2 Initiation of Review. The City’s Community Development Director shall initiate the annual review, as required under Section 8.56.140 of Chapter 8.56, by giving to Developer thirty days’ prior written notice that the City intends to undertake such review. Not less than thirty days after receipt of the notice, Developer shall provide evidence to the Director, as reasonably determined necessary by the Director, to demonstrate good faith compliance with the material terms and provisions of the Agreement as to the whole or relevant portion of the Property owned by Developer. The burden of proof by substantial evidence of compliance is upon Developer. 10.3 Staff Reports. To the extent practical, the City shall deposit in the mail to Developer a copy of all staff reports, and related exhibits concerning contract performance at least five days prior to any public hearing addressing annual review. 10.4 Costs. Costs reasonably incurred by the City in connection with the annual review shall be paid by Developer in accordance with the City’s schedule of fees in effect at the time of review. 16 11. Default. 11.1 Remedies Available. Upon the occurrence of an event of default, the parties may pursue all remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement or in the City’s regulations governing development agreements, expressly including, but not limited to, the remedy of specific performance of this Agreement. 11.2 Notice and Cure. Upon the occurrence of an event of default by either party, the nondefaulting party shall serve written notice of such default upon the defaulting party. Subject to a Mortgagee’s right to cure pursuant to Section 13.3 hereof, if the default is not cured by the defaulting party within thirty days after service of such notice of default, the nondefaulting party may then commence any legal or equitable action to enforce its rights under this Agreement; provided, however, that if the default cannot be cured within such thirty day period, the nondefaulting party shall refrain from any such legal or equitable action so long as the defaulting party begins to cure such default within such thirty day period and diligently pursues such cure to completion. Any notice of default given hereunder shall specify in detail the nature of the failures in performance that the noticing Party claims constitutes the event of default, all facts constituting substantial evidence of such failure, and the manner in which such failure may be satisfactorily cured in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. During the time periods herein specified for cure of a failure of performance, the Party charged therewith shall not be considered to be in default for purposes of (a) termination of this Agreement, (b) institution of legal proceedings with respect thereto, or (c) issuance of any approval with respect to the Project. Failure to give notice shall not constitute a waiver of any default. 11.3 No Damages against City. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in no event shall damages be awarded against the City upon an event of default or upon termination of this Agreement. 12. Estoppel Certificate. Either party may, at any time, and from time to time, request written notice from the other party requesting such party to certify in writing that, (a) this Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the Parties, (b) this Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, or if so amended, identifying the amendments, and (c) to the knowledge of the certifying Party, the requesting Party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in default, to describe therein the nature and amount of any such defaults. A Party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such certificate within thirty days following the receipt thereof, or such 17 longer period as may reasonably be agreed to by the Parties. The City Manager of the City shall be authorized to execute any certificate requested by Developer. Should the Party receiving the request not execute and return such certificate within the applicable period, this shall not be deemed to be a default, provided that such Party shall be deemed to have certified that the statements in clauses (a) through (c) of this Section are true, and any Party may rely on such deemed certification. City acknowledges that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by Transferees (as defined in Section 16.2) and Mortgagees (as defined in Section13.1). 13. Mortgagee Protection; Certain Rights of Cure. 13.1 Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to any lien placed upon the Property, or any portion thereof after the date of recording this Agreement, including the lien for any deed of trust or mortgage (“Mortgage”). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, but all the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against any person or entity, including any deed of trust beneficiary or mortgagee (“Mortgagee”) who acquires title to the Property, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee’s sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise. 13.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 13.1 above, no Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this Agreement, before or after foreclosure or a deed in lieu of foreclosure, to construct or complete the construction of improvements, or to guarantee such construction of improvements, or to guarantee such construction or completion, or to pay, perform or provide any fee, dedication, improvements or other exaction or imposition; provided, however, that a Mortgagee shall not be entitled to devote the Property to any uses or to construct any improvements thereon other than those uses or improvements provided for or authorized by the Project Approvals or by this Agreement. 13.3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee and Extension of Right to Cure. If the City receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given Developer hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, then the City shall deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to Developer, any notice given to Developer with respect to any claim by the City that Developer has committed an event of default. Each Mortgagee shall have the right during the same period available to Developer to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the event of default claimed set forth in the City’s notice. The City, through its City Manager, may extend the thirty-day cure period provided in paragraph 12.2 18 for not more than an additional sixty days upon request of Developer or a Mortgagee. 14. Severability. The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provisions, covenant, condition or term of this Agreement shall not render the other provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal; provided that, if the unenforceability, invalidation, or illegality would deprive either City or Developer of material benefits derived from this Development Agreement, or make performance under this Development Agreement unreasonably difficult, then City and Developer shall meet and confer and shall make good faith efforts to amend or modify this Development Agreement in a manner that is mutually acceptable to City and Developer. 15. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. 15.1 Prevailing Party. If the City or Developer initiates any action at law or in equity to enforce or interpret the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’' fees and costs in addition to any other relief to which it may otherwise be entitled. 15.2 Third Party Challenge. If any person or entity not a party to this Agreement initiates an action at law or in equity to challenge the validity of any the Project Approvals (including this Agreement), the Parties shall cooperate in defending such action. The Parties hereby agree to affirmatively cooperate in defending said action and to execute a joint defense and confidentiality agreement in order to share and protect information, under the joint defense privilege recognized under applicable law. Developer shall bear its own costs of defense as a real party in interest in any such action, and shall reimburse the City for all reasonable court costs and attorneys’ fees expended by the City in defense of any such action or other proceeding 16. Transfers and Assignments. 16.1 Agreement Runs with the Land. All of the provisions, rights, terms, covenants, and obligations contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective heirs, successors and assignees, representatives, lessees, and all other persons acquiring the Property, or any portion thereof, or any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever. All of the provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitude and shall constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable laws, including, but not limited to, Section 1468 of the Civil Code of the State of California. Each covenant to do, or refrain from doing, some act on the Property hereunder, or with respect to any owned property, (a) is for the benefit of 19 such properties and is a burden upon such properties, (b) runs with such properties, and (c) is binding upon each party and each successive owner during its ownership of such properties or any portion thereof, and shall be a benefit to and a burden upon each party and its property hereunder and each other person succeeding to an interest in such properties. 16.2 Right to Assign. Developer may wish to sell, transfer or assign all or portions of its Property to other developers (each such other developer is referred to as a “Transferee”). In connection with any such sale, transfer or assignment to a Transferee, Developer shall have the right to sell, transfer or assign to such Transferee any or all rights, interests and obligations of Developer arising hereunder and that pertain to the portion of the Property being sold or transferred, to such Transferee, provided, however, that: except as provided herein, no such transfer, sale or assignment of Developer’s rights, interests and obligations hereunder shall occur without prior written notice to City and approval by the City Manager, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed. 16.3 Approval and Notice of Sale, Transfer or Assignment . The City Manager shall consider and decide on any transfer, sale or assignment of this Agreement within ten days after Developer’s notice, provided all necessary documents, certifications and other information are provided to the City Manager to enable the City Manager to determine whether the proposed Transferee can perform Developer’s obligations hereunder. Notice of any such approved sale, transfer or assignment (which includes a description of all rights, interests and obligations that have been transferred and those which have been retained by Developer) shall be recorded in the official records of Alameda County, in a form acceptable to the City Manager, concurrently with such sale, transfer or assignment. 16.4 Considerations for Approval of Sale, Transfer or Assignment. In considering the request, the City Manager shall base the decision upon the proposed assignee's reputation, experience, financial resources and access to credit and capability to successfully carry out the development of the Property to completion. The City Manager's approval shall be for the purposes of: a) providing notice to City; b) assuring that all obligations of Developer are allocated as between Developer and the proposed purchaser, transferee or assignee as provided by this Agreement; and c) assuring City that the proposed purchaser, transferee or assignee is financially capable of performing Developer's obligations hereunder not withheld by Developer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Manager’s approval shall not be required for an assignment to an entity or entities controlling Developer, controlled by Developer, or under common control with Developer, provided that Developer owns and 20 controls no less than fifty percent of such successor entity or controls the day-to-day management decisions of such successor entity. 16.5 Release upon Transfer. Upon the transfer, sale, or assignment of all of Developer’s rights, interests and obligations hereunder pursuant to Section 14.2 of this Agreement, Developer shall be automatically released from the obligations under this Agreement, with respect to the Property transferred, sold, or assigned, arising subsequent to the date of City Manager approva l of such transfer, sale, or assignment; provided, however, that if any transferee, purchaser, or assignee approved by the City Manager expressly assumes all of the rights, interests and obligations of Developer under this Agreement, Developer shall be rel eased with respect to all such rights, interests and assumed obligations. In any event, the transferee, purchaser, or assignee shall be subject to all the provisions hereof and shall provide all necessary documents, certifications and other necessary information prior to City Manager approval. 16.6 Developer’s Right to Retain Specified Rights or Obligations. Developer may withhold from a sale, transfer or assignment of this Agreement or any portion of the Property transferred, certain rights, interests and/or obligations which Developer wishes to retain, provided that Developer specifies such rights, interests and/or obligations in a written document to be appended to this Agreement and recorded with the Alameda County Recorder prior to the sale, transfer or assignment of the Property. Developer’s purchaser, transferee or assignee shall then have no interest or obligations for such rights, interests and obligations and this Agreement shall remain applicable to Developer with respect to such retained rights, interests and/or obligations. 16.7 Partial Assignment. In the event of a partial Transfer, City shall cooperate with Developer and any proposed Transferee to allocate rights and obligations under the Development Agreement and t he Project Approvals among the retained Property and the transferred Property. Provided that City receives a copy of the assignment and assumption agreement by which Transferee assumes the Transferred rights and obligations associated with the transferred Property: (i) any subsequent breach with respect to the Transferred obligations shall not constitute a breach with respect to the retained rights and obligations of such transferor (or any other Transferee) under the Development Agreement; (ii) and any subsequent breach with respect to the retained obligations of transferor (or any other Transferee) shall not constitute a breach with respect to the Transferred rights and obligations of a Transferee under the Development Agreement. The transferor and the Transferee each shall be solely responsible for the reporting and annual review requirements relating to the portion of the Property owned by such 21 transferor/Transferee. Any amendment to the Development Agreement between City and a transferor or Transferee shall only affect the portion of the Property owned by such transferor or Transferee. 17. Bankruptcy. The obligations of this Agreement shall not be dischargeable in bankruptcy. 18. Indemnification. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, and its elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees, and representatives from any and all claims, costs (including legal fees and costs) and liability for any personal injury or property damage which may arise directly or indirectly as a result of any actions or inactions by Developer, or any actions or inactions of Developer’s contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees in connection with the construction, improvement, operation, or maintenance of the Project, provided that Developer shall have no indemnification obligation with respect to negligence or wrongful conduct of the City, its contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees or with respect to the maintenance, use or condition of any improvement after the time it has been dedicated to and accepted by the City or another public entity (except as provided in an improvement agreement or maintenance bond). If City is named as a party to any legal action, City shall cooperate with Developer, shall appear in such action and shall not unreasonably withhold approval of a settlement otherwise acceptable to Developer. 19. Insurance. 19.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. During the Term of this Agreement, Developer shall maintain in effect a policy of commercial general liability insurance with a per-occurrence combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000. The policy so maintained by Developer shall name the City as an additional insured and shall include either a severability of interest clause or cross - liability endorsement. City and Developer agree that such insurance may include alternative risk management programs, including self-insurance or a combination of self-insurance and insurance, provided that such alternative risk management programs provide protection equivalent to that specified under this Agreement. 19.2 Workers Compensation Insurance. During the Term of this Agreement Developer shall maintain Worker’s Compensation insurance for all persons employed by Developer for work at the Project site. Developer shall require each contractor and subcontractor similarly to provide Worker’s Compensation 22 insurance for its respective employees. Developer agrees to indemnify the City for any damage resulting from Developer’s failure to maintain any such insurance. 19.3 Evidence of Insurance. Prior to issuance of any permits for the Project, including grading permits, Developer shall furnish the City satisfactory evidence of the insurance required in Sections 19.1 and 19.2 and evidence that the carrier is required to give the City at least fifteen days prior written notice of the cancellation or reduction in coverage of a policy unless replaced with similar coverage. The insurance shall extend to the City, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees and representatives and to Developer performing work on the Project. 20. Sewer and Water. Developer acknowledges that it must obtain water and sewer permits from the Dublin San Ramon Services District (“DSRSD”) which is another public agency not within the control of the City. City agrees that it shall not take any action with DSRSD opposing Developer’s efforts to reserve water and sewer capacity sufficient to serve the Project described herein. 21. Notices. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing. Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows: City Manager City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Fax No. (925) 833-6651 With copies to: City Attorney Notices required to be given to Developer shall be addressed as follows: Daniel M. Ikeda, Chief Financial Officer SCS Development Co 404 Saratoga Ave. Suite 100 Santa Clara, CA 95050 Phone No.: 408-985-6000 Fax No.: 408-985-6050 Email: dikeda@scsdevelopment.com 23 A Party may change address by giving notice in writing to the other Party and thereafter all notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. Notices shall be deemed given and received upon personal delivery, or if mailed, upon the expiration of 48 hours after being deposited in the United States Mail. Notices may also be given by overnight courier, which shall be deemed given the following day or by facsimile transmission or email, which shall be deemed given upon verification of receipt. 22. Agreement is Entire Understanding. This Agreement, including its exhibits, constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the Parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. 23. Exhibits. The following documents are referred to in this Agreement and are attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full: Exhibit A Legal Description of Property Exhibit B Impact Fee Schedule Exhibit C Planning Areas Exhibit D Northside Drive PA1 Propertuy 24 24. Recitals. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and are made a part hereof. 25. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by each Party on a separate signature page, and when the executed signature pages are combined, shall constitute one single instrument. This Agreement is executed in two duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original. 26. Recordation. The City shall record a copy of this Agreement within ten days following execution by all Parties. Thereafter, if this Agreement is terminated, modified or amended, the City Clerk shall record notice of such action with the Alameda County Recorder. 27. No Third Party Beneficiaries. Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended to or shall be deemed to confer upon any person, other than the Parties and their respective permitted successors and assigns, any rights or remedies hereunder. 28. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 29. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence for each provision of this Agreement for which time is an element. 30. Further Actions and Instruments. Each Party to this Development Agreement shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other Party and take all actions necessary to ensure that the Parties receive the benefits of this Development Agreement, subject to satisfaction of the conditions of this Development Agreement. Upon the request of any Party, the other Party shall promptly execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of this Development Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this Development Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Development Agre ement. 31. Section Headings. Section headings in this Development Agreement are for convenience only and are not intended to be used in interpreting or construing the terms, covenants or conditions of this Development Agreement. 32. Construction of Agreement. This Development Agreement has been reviewed and revised by legal counsel for both Developer and City, and no 25 presumption or rule that ambiguities shall be construed against the drafting Party shall apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this Development Agreement. 33. Authority. The persons signing below represent and warrant that they have the authority to bind their respective Party and that all necessary board of directors’, shareholders’, partners’, city councils’, or other approvals have been obtained. 34. Non-Intended Prevailing Wage Requirements. Except for public improvements constructed by the Developer and to be dedicated to the City (which are subject to conditions of Approval 95, Compliance), nothing in this Development Agreement shall in any way require, or be construed to require, Developer to pay prevailing wages with respect to any work of construction or improvement within the Project (a “Non-Intended Prevailing Wage Requirement”). But for the understanding of the Parties as reflected in the immediately preceding sentence, the Parties would not have entered into this Development Agreement based upon the terms and conditions set forth herein. Developer and City have made every effort in reaching this Development Agreement to ensure that its te rms and conditions will not result in a Non-Intended Prevailing Wage Requirement. These efforts have been conducted in the absence of any applicable existing judicial interpretation of the recent amendments to the California prevailing wage law. If, despite such efforts, any provision of this Development Agreement shall be determined by any court of competent jurisdiction to result in a Non Intended Prevailing Wage Requirement, such determination shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any provision hereof; provided, however, that the Parties hereby agree that, in such event, this Development Agreement shall be reformed such that each provision of this Development Agreement that results in the Non-Intended Prevailing Wage Requirement will be removed from this Development Agreement as though such provisions were never a part of the Development Agreement, and, in lieu of such provision(s), replacement provisions shall be added as a part of this Development Agreement as similar in terms to such removed provision(s) as may be possible and legal, valid and enforceable but without resulting in the Non-Intended Prevailing Wage Requirement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date and year first above wr itten. 26 CITY OF DUBLIN By: _____________________________ Linda Smith, City Manager Attest: __________________________ Caroline Soto, City Clerk Approved as to form __________________________ John Bakker, City Attorney DEVELOPER Award Homes, Inc., a California corporation By: __________________________ Name: _______________________ Its: __________________________ SCS Development Company, a California Corporation By: __________________________ Name: _______________________ Its: __________________________ Santa Clara Valley Housing Group, Inc., a California corporation By: __________________________ Name: _______________________ Its: __________________________ (NOTARIZATION ATTACHED) 3453604.8 CITY OF DUBLIN IMPACT FEES FY 2019-20 The following pages contain a summary of the adjustments for the fees for Fiscal Year 2019-20. The new fee rates become effective July 1, 2019, with the exception of the Freeway Interchange Fee which becomes effective September 1, 2019 • Public Facilities Impact Fee • Fire Impact Fee • Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (EDTIF) • Western Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (WDTIF) • Dublin Crossing Transportation Fee • Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee (TVTD) • Noise Mitigation Fee • Freeway Interchange Fee • Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee • Dublin Ranch W est Side Storm Drain Benefit District • Dublin Ranch East Side Storm Drain Benefit District Page 2 of 6 PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT FEE RESIDENTIAL Single Family & Townhome Other Multi Family Senior Housing Second Unit Aquatic Center $353 $216 $128 $216 Civic Center 1,567 957 569 957 Community Buildings 3,929 2,399 1,428 2,399 Community Nature Parks, Improvements 301 184 109 184 Community Parks, Improvements 4,757 2,903 1,729 2,903 Community Parks, Land 8,509 5,194 3,093 5,194 Libraries 282 173 102 173 Neighborhood Parks, Improvements 2,781 1,697 1,012 1,697 Neighborhood Parks, Land 3,832 2,339 1,393 2,339 TOTAL FEE $26,311 $16,062 $9,563 $16,062 NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial Office Industrial Senior Service Facility Aquatic Center $12 $16 $6 $5 Civic Center 366 492 183 149 Community Buildings 148 199 75 61 Comm. Nature Parks, Improve. 51 71 26 21 Community Parks, Improve. 827 1,110 411 337 Community Parks, Land 1,481 1,990 737 605 Libraries 54 74 28 23 TOTAL FEE (per 1,000 s.f.) $2,939 $3,952 $1,466 $1,201 FIRE IMPACT FEE RESIDENTIAL Single-Family & Townhome Other Multi Family Senior Housing Second Unit Per Unit $339 $207 $123 $207 NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial Office Industrial Senior Service Facility Land-Use Type (Per 1,000 s.f.) $80 $107 $39 $32 Page 3 of 6 EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE RESIDENTIAL OUTSIDE TRANSIT CENTER Low (6.0 Units per acre or less) Medium (6.1-14 units/acre) Medium High (14.1-25 units/acre) High (25.1+ units/acre) Second Unit EDTIF Cat. 1 $8,758 $8,758 $6,133 $5,256 $5,256 EDTIF Cat. 2 $2,254 $2,254 $1,579 $1,352 $1,352 EDTIF Cat. 2 (BART Garage) 790 790 553 474 474 EDTIF Cat. 2 $3,044 $3,044 $2,132 $1,826 $1,826 TOTAL FEE $11,802 $11,802 $8,265 $7,082 $7,082 RESIDENTIAL INSIDE TRANSIT CENTER Low (6.0 Units per acre or less) Medium (6.1-14 units/acre) Medium High (14.1-25 units/acre) High (25.1+ units/acre) Second Unit EDTIF Cat. 1 $8,758 $8,758 $6,133 $3,999 $3,999 EDTIF Cat. 2 $2,254 $2,254 $1,579 $1,015 $1,015 TOTAL FEE $11,012 $11,012 $7,712 $5,014 $5,014 NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial Office Industrial EDTIF Cat. 1 (Per 1,000 s.f.) $837 $837 $837 EDTIF Cat. 2 (Per 1,000 s.f.) 227 227 227 TOTAL FEE(1) $1,064 $1,064 $1,064 (1) Fee is calculated based on Fee Rate x Land Use Measurement Unit x Trip Rate Multiplier. WESTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE RESIDENTIAL Low (6.0 Units per acre or less) Medium (6.1-14 units/acre) Medium High (14.1-25 units/acre) High (25.1+ units/acre) Second Unit Per Unit (1) $5,870 $5,870 $3,639 $3,052 $3,052 NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial Office Industrial Land-Use Type (Per 1,000 s.f.)(1) (2) (3) $5,870 $5,870 $5,870 (1) Project locates within the boundaries of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area is eligible for a trip reduction factor of 23% if the project meets certain design criteria. (2) Fee is calculated based on Fee Rate x Land Use Measurement Unit x Trip Rate Multiplier (3) Project includes a retail use is eligible for a 35% trip reduction factor to the trips associated with the retail use. Page 4 of 6 EASTERN DUBLIN FREEWAY INTERCHANGE FEE (City of Pleasanton) FEES EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2018 - AUGUST 31, 2019 RESIDENTIAL Low Density (6.0 Units per acre or less) Medium Density (6.1-14 units/acre) Medium High Density (14.1-25 units/acre) High Density (25.1+ units/acre) Second Unit Base Fee $214.60 $214.60 $150.22 $128.76 $128.76 Escalator 128.13 128.13 89.69 76.87 76.87 TOTAL FEE $342.73 $342.73 $239.91 $205.63 $205.63 NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial Office Industrial Base Fee (Per 1,000 sf) $21.46 $21.46 $21.46 Escalator (Per 1,000 sf) 12.80 12.80 12.80 TOTAL FEE (1) $34.26 $34.26 $34.26 FEES EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2019 - AUGUST 31, 2020 RESIDENTIAL Low Density (6.0 Units per acre or less) Medium Density (6.1-14 units/acre) Medium High Density (14.1-25 units/acre) High Density (25.1 + units/acre) Second Unit Base Fee $214.60 $214.60 $150.22 $128.76 $128.76 Escalator 135.85 135.85 95.10 81.50 81.50 TOTAL FEE $350.45 $350.45 $245.32 $210.26 $210.26 NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial Office Industrial Base Fee (Per 1,000 sf) $21.46 $21.46 $21.46 Escalator (Per 1,000 sf) 13.57 13.57 13.57 TOTAL FEE (1) $35.03 $35.03 $35.03 (1) Total fee calculation is based on EDTIF trip rate of Land-Use Type. Page 5 of 6 DUBLIN CROSSING TRANSPORTATION FEE RESIDENTIAL Low (6.0 Units per acre or less) Medium (6.1-14 units/acre) Medium High (14.1-25 units/acre) High (25.1+ units/acre) Second Unit Per Unit $9,476 $9,476 $6,633 $5,685 $5,685 NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial Office Industrial TOTAL FEE (Per 1,000 s.f.) (1) $838 $838 $838 (1) Fee is calculated based on Fee Rate x Land Use Measurement Unit x Trip Rate Multiplier. TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE RESIDENTIAL Single Family Multi Family Second Unit Per Unit $4,650.56 $3,203.48 $3,203.48 NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial Office Industrial Other (per average AM/PM peak hour trip) Land-Use Type (Per s.f.) $3.44 $7.90 $4.60 $5,167.37 EASTERN DUBLIN NOISE MITIGATION FEE RESIDENTIAL Low (6.0 Units per acre or less) Medium (6.1-14 units/acre) Medium High (14.1-25 units/acre) High (25.1+ units/acre) Second Unit Per Unit $4.74 $4.74 $3.32 $2.85 $2.85 NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial Office Industrial Land-Use Type (Per 1,000 s.f.) $23.71 $7.11 $2.37 Page 6 of 6 AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN LIEU FEE RESIDENTIAL (Per Unit) $197,253 NON-RESIDENTIAL Industrial Office Research & Development Retail Services & Accommodations Land-Use Type (Per s.f.) $0.56 $1.45 $0.95 $1.18 $0.49 STORM DRAIN BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS 1. DUBLIN RANCH WEST SIDE STORM DRAIN BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Parcel Owner / Reference Balance (07/01/2019) Parcel #2 Dublin Land Co. $149,592.68 Parcel #3 Dublin Land Co. 193,418.27 Parcel #4 Dublin Land Co. 95,522.02 2. DUBLIN RANCH EAST SIDE STORM DRAIN BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Parcel Original Assessment Report Owner / Reference Balance (07/01/2019) Parcel #3 Chen $634,511.81 Parcel #4 EBJ Partners 7,412.88 Parcel #5 Anderson 2,695.62 Parcel #7 Croak 555,680.77 Parcel #8 Anderson 267,162.86 Parcel #9 Righetti 319,876.60 Parcel #10 Branaugh 256,380.48 Parcel #11 Monte Vista 62,672.46 Fiscal and Employment Impacts of the Proposed At Dublin Project to the City of Dublin Prepared for: City of Dublin Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. June 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. The Site 1 B. Proposed Land Use 2 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 A. Recurring Net Annual General Fund Fiscal Impact upon Buildout 3 B. Recurring Net Annual General Fund Fiscal Impact from Residential Component 4 C. One-time Construction-related General Fund Revenues 5 D. On-site Jobs to be Created by the Construction and Operation of the Project 5 III. FISCAL IMPACTS 7 A. Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues upon Buildout 7 B. Recurring Annual General Fund Expenditures upon Buildout 8 C. Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues from Residential Component 10 D. Recurring Annual General Fund Expenditures from Residential Component 11 E. One-time Construction-related General Fund Revenues to City of Dublin 12 IV. METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS 13 V. LIMITING CONDITIONS 18 VI. APPENDIX TABLES 19 Exhibits Exhibit 1. The Site and its Context ............................................................................................. 1 Exhibit 2. Land Use Program (October 2019) ............................................................................. 2 Exhibit 3. Site Plan (October 2019) ............................................................................................ 2 Exhibit 4. Recurring Net Annual General Fund Fiscal Impact upon Buildout .............................. 3 Exhibit 5. Recurring Total Annual General Fund Fiscal Impact upon Buildout ............................ 4 Exhibit 6. Recurring Net Annual Fiscal Impact from Residential Component .............................. 4 Exhibit 7. Recurring Total Annual Fiscal Impact from Residential Component............................ 5 Exhibit 8. One-time General Fund Construction Related Revenues ........................................... 5 Exhibit 9. Direct Construction and Permanent Jobs ................................................................... 6 Exhibit 10. Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues upon Buildout ........................................ 8 Exhibit 11. Composition of Total Annual General Fund Revenues upon Buildout ....................... 8 Exhibit 12. Recurring Annual General Fund Expenditures upon Buildout ................................... 9 Exhibit 13. Composition of Total Annual General Fund Expenditures upon Buildout .................. 9 Exhibit 14. Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues- Residential Only..................................10 Exhibit 15. Composition of Total Annual General Fund Revenues- Residential Only ................10 Exhibit 16. Recurring Annual General Fund Expenditures- Residential Only .............................11 Exhibit 17. Composition of Total Annual General Fund Expenditures- Residential Only ............11 Exhibit 18. One-time General Fund Sales/Use Tax Revenues from Construction .....................12 Exhibit 19. One-time Initial Property Transfer Tax Revenues ....................................................12 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 1 \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx I. INTRODUCTION The following report has been prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) for the City of Dublin (the City). The report presents the estimated fiscal impacts that the proposed project, At Dublin (the Project), will have on the City, based on the development application submitted in October 2019. The findings of this report will be used to determine if the Project meets the City’s fiscal neutrality requirement for projects that are applying for development entitlements. The findings may also potentially be used to establish the terms of a Development Agreement and Municipal Services Agreement with the applicant. The principal objectives of the analysis are to:  Estimate the recurring annual fiscal impacts of the entire proposed Project upon build- out, and the recurring annual fiscal impacts of only the residential component; and  Estimate the magnitude of construction-related tax revenues that will be generated by the Project. A. The Site The Project will be located on 76.9 acres bounded by Tassajara Road, Brannigan Street, Interstate 580, and a sliver above Gleason Drive on the north side of Interstate 580. The subject site is currently vacant and the uses in the immediate area primarily include single and multifamily residential, restaurants, retail, elementary schools, office, and parks. Exhibit 1. The Site and its Context Source: Base Map from Google Earth (2018) Site Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 2 \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx B. Proposed Land Use The proposed Project is spread across 76.9 acres and includes approximately 240,000 SF of commercial development and 566 residential units. The commercial development includes 120,000 SF of retail and entertainment uses, 45,000 SF of medical office uses, and an upscale extended stay hotel with approximately 150 rooms. The residential development includes 240 multifamily apartments and 326 single family detached units. The single family detached units are comprised of 130 conventional units and 196 units designated for residents over the age of 55. The proposed land use program and the proposed site plan are presented in Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3, respectively. Exhibit 2. Land Use Program (October 2019) Land Use Designation Acres1 Units Sq. Ft. Rooms Commercial 19.2 0 240,000 150 Retail, Restaurants, and Services 54,000 Medical Office 45,000 Movie Theater 66,000 Hotel 75,000 150 Multi-Family Apartments 4.0 240 Single Family Detached 51.2 326 Single Family: Cluster 15 Single Family: Traditional 115 Age-Restricted (55+): Duet 99 Age-Restricted (55+): Cluster 97 Parks/Open Space 2.5 Total Project 76.9 566 240,000 150 See Appendix 3A for details. 1 Acreage by land use estimated by KMA based on site plan. Exhibit 3. Site Plan (October 2019) Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 3 \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY It is estimated that the built-out Project will annually generate a fiscal surplus to the City of Dublin. The key findings of the analysis are summarized below.  The Project will annually generate approximately $1.99 million of tax revenues to City’s General Fund, net of service costs. Given that the property generated only a minor amount of property tax revenue prior to the applicant’s purchase, $1.98 million of the estimated future surplus represents additional annual net revenues to the City.  The residential component (independent of the commercial component) is also fiscally positive and will annually generate approximately $746,000 of net tax revenues to the City.  The one-time construction-related revenues to be generated to by the Project are estimated to exceed $1.06 million. A. Recurring Net Annual General Fund Fiscal Impact upon Buildout The Project upon buildout is anticipated to generate annual General Fund revenues of approximately $2.92 million. Annual General Fund expenditures to provide services such as police protection, fire protection, infrastructure maintenance and other general city services are anticipated to approximate $927,000. Net of municipal service costs, the Project is anticipated to annually generate a net annual fiscal surplus of approximately $1.99 million. Excluding the amount of property taxes that the City received in FY 2017/18 (which reflects the period prior to the development team’s purchase of the site for the proposed project), the project will generate approximately $1.98 million of net new tax revenues to the City. Exhibit 4. Recurring Net Annual General Fund Fiscal Impact upon Buildout Total Annual Impacts Net New Annual Impacts Total Annual General Fund Revenues $2,917,000 $2,908,000 Total Annual General Fund Expenditures ($927,000) ($927,000) Net Annual General Fund Fiscal Surplus/(Deficit) upon Buildout $1,990,000 $1,981,000 See Appendix 1 for details Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 4 \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx Exhibit 5. Recurring Total Annual General Fund Fiscal Impact upon Buildout B. Recurring Net Annual General Fund Fiscal Impact from Residential Component The residential component of the Project is anticipated to generate annual General Fund revenues of approximately $1.54 million and annual General Fund expenditures of approximately $789,000. Thus, the residential component is expected to generate a net annual fiscal surplus of approximately $746,000. Excluding the residential component’s share of the property taxes that the City received in FY 2017/18, net new tax revenues are estimated to total $739,000. Exhibit 6. Recurring Net Annual Fiscal Impact from Residential Component Total Annual Impacts Net New Annual Impacts Total Annual General Fund Revenues $1,535,000 $1,528,000 Total Annual General Fund Expenditures ($789,000) ($789,000) Net Annual Fiscal Surplus/(Deficit) from Residential Component $746,000 $739,000 See Appendix 22 for details $2,917,000 ($927,000) $1,990,000 ($1,500,000) ($1,000,000) ($500,000) $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 Revenues Expenditures Net Impact Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 5 \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx Exhibit 7. Recurring Total Annual Fiscal Impact from Residential Component C. One-time Construction-related General Fund Revenues KMA has estimated that the materials purchased for the construction of the Project will yield approximately $770,000 of use tax revenues to the City’s General Fund. Additionally, initial property transfer tax revenues from the land sales transactions are estimated to total $70,000, and property transfer tax revenues from the initial sales of for-sale residential units are estimated to total $222,000. The aggregate of one-time construction-related General Fund revenues are estimated to total $1.06 million. Exhibit 8. One-time General Fund Construction Related Revenues Revenue Source $ Total Sales/Use Tax Generated from Construction Material Purchases $770,000 Initial Property Transfer Tax from Land Sale Transactions $70,000 Initial Property Transfer Tax from For-Sale Units $222,000 Total One-time Construction Related Revenues $1,062,000 See Appendix 1 for details. D. On-site Jobs to be Created by the Construction and Operation of the Project KMA has estimated the number of full-time equivalent direct construction jobs and permanent jobs to be created by the Project. As shown in Exhibit 9, it is estimated that the construction of the Project will generate 2,010 full-time equivalent construction jobs, assuming a one-year construction period. The businesses are estimated to create 570 full-time equivalent permanent employees. The actual job count will vary, depending on the number of part time versus full-time $1,535,000 ($789,000) $746,000 ($1,000,000) ($500,000) $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 Revenues Expenditures Net Impact Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 6 \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx positions. These job estimates reflect the direct impacts of the Project and do not include the additional jobs that will be indirectly supported by the suppliers of construction materials, the on- going purchases of the Project’s businesses, and the on-going expenditures by residents and employees. Exhibit 9. Direct Construction and Permanent Jobs Full-time Equivalent Jobs Construction Jobs (one-year period) 2,010 Permanent On-site Jobs at Commercial Businesses 570 See Appendix 4 and Appendix 20A. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 7 \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx III. FISCAL IMPACTS A. Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues upon Buildout Upon build-out, the Project is estimated to generate approximately $2.92 million of annual revenues to the City of Dublin’s General Fund. Property tax revenues are anticipated to be the largest source of General Fund revenues, estimated to total $1.47 million per year (or 51% of total revenues). Excluding the amount of property taxes that the City received in FY 2017/18 (which reflects the period prior to the development team’s purchase of the site for the proposed project), the project will generate approximately $1.46 million of new property tax revenues to the City. Transient occupancy taxes (TOT) of $647,000 (or 22% of total revenues) and sales tax revenues of $388,000 (or 13% of total revenues) are expected to be the second and third largest sources of revenues, respectively. Also, property tax in-lieu of motor vehicle fees (VLF) are expected to annually generate $261,000 of General Fund revenue (or 9% of total revenues). Both property taxes and property taxes in-lieu of motor vehicle license fees are driven by the assessed valuation of the Project upon buildout. The anticipated future assessed value of the Project has been calculated based on development cost factors provided by Shea Properties and the FY 2019/20 assessed land value of the site. The total assessed value upon completion is estimated at $641 million, while the net new assessed value is estimated at $637 million (Appendix 5A). The Project will generate sales tax revenues from on-site retail sales (including taxable sales from the theater), the daytime purchases of the Project’s employees from other locations in Dublin, and resident spending on retail merchandise in other Dublin locations. Transient occupancy tax (TOT) is driven by hotel room sales. This analysis assumes a 150- room, upscale extended stay hotel with each room containing a fully equipped kitchen. The number of rooms reflects the applicant’s current development program, which allows for 150 to 155 rooms. The hotel class and format is consistent with the letter of intent from a hotel operator that was presented in a prior planning application. This analysis conservatively assumes that the proposed hotel will generate an average room rate of $185, which is equal to the inflation- adjusted room rate of competitive hotels in the market area identified in the CBRE report, “Market Demand Analysis of Proposed Hotels in Dublin” (October 19, 2017). Note that the CBRE report finds that the subject hotel has the potential to achieve a 15% premium over prevailing room rates, which is not assumed in this analysis. Remaining revenue sources are anticipated to generate $148,000 annually (or 5% of total revenues) and include: franchise fees, property transfer tax, and business registration fees. Franchise fee revenues are based on per capita figures derived from revenue data from the City’s 2019/20 adopted budget and the City’s current employment and population base. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 8 \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx Exhibit 10. Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues upon Buildout Revenue Source Total Annual Impacts Percent of Total New Annual Impacts Property Tax $1,473,000 51% $1,464,000 Transient Occupancy Tax $647,000 22% $647,000 Sales Tax $388,000 13% $388,000 Property Tax In-lieu of VLF $261,000 9% $261,000 Other Revenues1 $148,000 5% $148,000 Total Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues upon Buildout $2,917,000 100% $2,908,000 See Appendix 1 for details 1. Includes property transfer tax, franchise fees, and business registration fees. Exhibit 11. Composition of Total Annual General Fund Revenues upon Buildout B. Recurring Annual General Fund Expenditures upon Buildout The annual cost to City of Dublin to provide services to the Project upon buildout is anticipated to approximate $927,000. The single largest annual expenditure is expected to be for police service costs, at $400,000 (or 43% of total expenses). The second largest expenditure is for fire service costs and is anticipated to approximate $238,000 (or 26% of total expenses). Costs associated with the Public Works Department, which is responsible for developing, operating and maintaining City infrastructure, are anticipated to approximate $120,000. The Project will include the development of new public infrastructure, including streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, traffic signals, street lights and landscaped medians. In 2018, the City’s Public Works Department estimated that the annual cost to maintain the public infrastructure would total $76,000 ($2018) based on a prior development program. This estimate was adjusted to 2019 dollars based on the national inflation index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Parks 51% 22% 13% 9% 5% Property Tax Transient Occupancy Tax Sales Tax Property Tax In-lieu of VLF Other Revenues Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 9 \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx and community services costs are anticipated to total $41,000 and other department expenses are estimated to total $51,000. Exhibit 12. Recurring Annual General Fund Expenditures upon Buildout Expenditure Source Total Annual Impacts1 Percent of Total Police Services ($400,000) 43% Fire Services ($238,000) 26% Public Works – city-wide ($120,000) 13% Public Works – new public improvements to be built by the Project ($77,000) 8% Parks and Community Services ($41,000) 4% Other Departments2 ($51,000) 6% Total Recurring Annual General Fund Expenditures upon Buildout ($927,000) 100% See Appendix 1 for details 1. For General Fund expenditures, total annual impacts will be same as new annual impacts. 2. Includes Community Development, City Council, Office of the City Manager, City Clerk's Office, Human Resources, City Attorney's Office and Administrative Services department expenditures. Exhibit 13. Composition of Total Annual General Fund Expenditures upon Buildout 43% 26% 21% 4%6% Police Services Fire Services Public Works Parks and Community Services Other Departments Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 10 \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx C. Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues from Residential Component The residential component of the Project is estimated to generate approximately $1.54 million of annual revenues to the General Fund. Property taxes are anticipated to be the largest source of General Fund revenues and are expected to generate $1.13 million (or 74% of total residential revenues). Property tax revenues are followed by property tax in-lieu of motor vehicle fees (VLF) at $201,000 (or 13% of total residential revenues), and sales tax revenues at $77,000 (or 5% of total residential revenues). Remaining revenue sources are anticipated to generate approximately $126,000 of annual revenues and include franchise fees and property transfer tax. Exhibit 14. Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues- Residential Only Revenue Source Total Annual Impacts Percent of Total New Annual Impacts Property Tax $1,131,000 74% $1,124,000 Property Tax In-lieu of VLF $201,000 13% $201,000 Sales Tax $77,000 5% $77,000 Other Revenues1 $126,000 8% $126,000 Total Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues upon Buildout $1,535,000 100% $1,528,000 See Appendix 22 for details 1. Includes property transfer tax and franchise fees. Exhibit 15. Composition of Total Annual General Fund Revenues- Residential Only 74% 13% 5% 8% Property Tax Property Tax In-lieu of VLF Sales Tax Other Revenues Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 11 \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx D. Recurring Annual General Fund Expenditures from Residential Component The annual cost to City of Dublin to provide services to the residential component of the Project is anticipated to approximate $789,000. The single largest annual expenditure is expected to be for police service costs, which is estimated at $337,000 (or 43% of total residential expenditures). The second largest expenditure is for fire services costs and is anticipated to total $201,000 (or 25% of total residential expenditures). Costs associated with the Public Works Department, which is responsible for developing, operating and maintaining City infrastructure are estimated to account for $101,000, while the project-specific public works expenditure is estimated at $65,000. Parks and community services costs are anticipated to total $41,000 and other department expenses are estimated to total $44,000 per year. Exhibit 16. Recurring Annual General Fund Expenditures- Residential Only Expenditure Source Total Annual Impacts1 Percent of Total Police Protection Services ($337,000) 43% Fire Protection Services ($201,000) 25% Public Works – city-wide ($101,000) 13% Public Works – new public improvements to be built by the Project ($65,000) 8% Parks and Community Services ($41,000) 5% Other Departments2 ($44,000) 6% Total Recurring Annual General Fund Expenditures upon Buildout ($789,000) 100% See Appendix 22 for details 1. For General Fund expenditures, total annual impacts will be same as new annual impacts. 2. Includes Community Development, City Council, Office of the City Manager, City Clerk’s Office, Human Resources Department, City Attorney's Office and Administrative Services department expenditures. Exhibit 17. Composition of Total Annual General Fund Expenditures- Residential Only 43% 25% 21% 5%6% Police Services Fire Services Public Works Parks and Community Services Other Departments Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 12 \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx E. One-time Construction-related General Fund Revenues to City of Dublin Use tax revenues will be generated by construction material purchases. For the purpose of this analysis, it has been assumed that City of Dublin is designated as the point of sale by the general and sub-contractors for 50% of the materials purchased for construction, and the cost of construction materials is equal to 50% of the total estimated hard cost. Use tax revenues from purchase of construction materials are estimated to total $770,000. Additionally, initial property transfer tax revenues from land sales transactions preceding development are estimated to total $70,000, and transfer taxes from the initial sales of residential units are estimated to total $222,000. Exhibit 18. One-time General Fund Sales/Use Tax Revenues from Construction $ Total Total Hard Cost $309,700,000 Estimated Construction Material Cost as a percentage of Hard Costs 50% Estimated Share with Dublin as a point of Sale 50% Estimated Construction Material Sales in City of Dublin $77,425,000 Local Sales and Use Tax Rate 1% Total One-time City Sales/Use Tax Revenues from Construction $770,000 See Appendix 20A for details Exhibit 19. One-time Initial Property Transfer Tax Revenues $ Total Property Transfer Tax from Purchase of Development Site $70,000 Property Transfer Tax from Initial Sale of Ownership Units $222,000 Total Initial General Fund Property Transfer Tax Revenue $292,000 See Appendix 20B for details Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 13 \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx IV. METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS The fiscal impact analysis provides a preliminary estimate of the annual recurring fiscal revenues and expenses that the Project will generate to the General Fund of the City of Dublin upon buildout, as well as one-time revenues generated during construction. General Fund revenues are the focus of the fiscal analysis because these revenues are the major sources of discretionary spending for key city services, including police and fire services, public works, and administrative services. This preliminary analysis measures the total annual impacts upon buildout of the entire Project and of the residential component, independent of the commercial component. The impacts of the residential component have been evaluated to ensure that the residential component alone will generate sufficient tax revenues to fund the cost of providing municipal services to the residential component. The major revenue and cost elements evaluated include property taxes, transient occupancy, sales and use taxes, and fire, public works, police, and parks and community services costs. Projections are static estimates based on both marginal estimating sources, such as assessed values and per capita retail spending information, and on average revenue and expenditure factors derived from the City’s FY 2019/20 Budget Summary. Estimates are in 2019 dollars. The analysis reflects the assumption that the Project is financially feasible, reaches full build-out, and that the land use components generate gross receipts consistent with the levels generated by newly constructed developments. The analysis is presented in attached tables. The key assumptions of the analysis and methodologies used to calculate the revenue impacts are summarized below.  Development Program – Per information from Shea Properties (October 2019 submittal), the proposed Project is spread across 76.9 acres and includes approximately 240,000 SF of commercial development and 566 residential units. The commercial development includes 120,000 SF of retail and entertainment uses, 45,000 SF of medical office uses, and one hotel containing approximately 150 rooms. The residential development includes 240 multifamily apartments, plus 326 single family detached units, 60% of which will be reserved for residents over the age of 55. See Appendix 3A.  Existing City of Dublin Demographics – The source for population and household demographic data is ESRI Business Analyst Demographic Forecasts for 2019. See Appendix 2. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 14 \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx  Project Demographics – Resident population is based on the current average household size and residential vacancy level in City of Dublin per ESRI Business Analyst. Commercial employment has been estimated based on employment density factors of 400 SF/employee for retail spaces, 600 SF/employee for the gas station/ convenience store, 1,000 SF/employee for the movie theater, 200 SF/employee for restaurants, and 250 SF/employee for medical office. Hotel employment has been estimated based on the employment density factor of 0.9 employees per room. KMA has assumed a commercial vacancy level of 5% for this analysis. See Appendix 4.  Inflation of Revenue and Expenses – The analysis is a static analysis of conditions upon buildout of the Project. Revenues are presented in 2019 dollars.  Continuity of Legal and Institutional Constraints – The revenue and expenditure structure of the City is based on the adopted FY 2019-20 budget. The projection assumes that the revenue sources will remain constant.  Rounding – In some cases the calculated summations presented in the appendix tables do not precisely match the summations presented in the body of the report. These differences are due to rounding.  Service Population – The estimates of Franchise Fees and most service costs use a modified per capita measure known as “Service Population.” This approach combines residents and employees to form a single service population. The Service Population approach weights an employee as 0.50 of a resident, such that two employees are viewed as having the same impact as one resident. See Appendix 4.  Assessed Property Value – The assessed values of the commercial and rental residential components have been estimated based on the development site’s acquisition cost and hard cost factors derived from the development budget provided by Shea Properties in June 2018 for the previous development program. KMA adjusted the hard cost factors for inflation using the national CPI and applied the inflation-adjusted factors to the current commercial and rental residential building areas. KMA estimates that a portion of soft costs would be included in the project’s assessed value, equivalent to 20% of hard cost estimates. The land values of the commercial and rental residential components have been estimated per the FY 2019/20 assessed land values (source: RealQuest). See Appendix 5A. For-sale residential properties’ assessed values are based on Shea Properties’ estimates of home sale prices provided in December 2019. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 15 \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx  City of Dublin General Fund’s Portion of Property Tax Revenues – The Project is located in Tax Rate Area (TRA) 26-023. The City receives 22.98% of the base 1% property tax levy in this TRA. See Appendix 6.  Property Transfer Tax – The City receives $0.55 for every $1,000 of assessed value of properties upon sale. In order to project annual property transfer taxes, this analysis assumes that the average holding period for homes is 7 years and that the holding period for commercial uses is 20 years (see Appendix 7). Additionally, the City received transfer tax revenues from the initial purchase of the development site by SCS Dublin Realty LLC and the resale of the site to an affiliate, SCS Development Co and Award Homes. The City will also receive transfer taxes from the resale of single family residential units. See Appendix 20B.  Property Tax In-Lieu of Motor Vehicle License Fees – Property tax in-lieu of VLF has been estimated in accordance with SB 1096, based on data from the California State Controller’s Office and projected assessed values. It is estimated based on $0.41 per $1,000 growth in projected assessed values. See Appendix 8.  Sales Tax Revenues – The City receives 1% of taxable sales. The sales tax revenues from retail activities are based on the average per square foot taxable sales generated by Persimmon Place in Dublin ($430/SF, after adjusting to 2019 dollars). Total revenue from the theater/cinema is estimated at $15-16 million, with 50% attributable to taxable food and beverage sales, based on information provided by Shea Properties for the prior development application. The analysis reflects the assumption that 100% of on-site sales are “new” sales to the City and are not generated by a transfer of sales from existing Dublin retailers to the subject Project. See Appendix 9A. Off-site taxable spending by project employees is estimated based on weekly retail spending by suburban workers, as reported in the ICSC report, "Office Worker Retail Spending in a Digital Age" (2012). Figures have been adjusted to 2019 dollars using the national CPI. KMA has assumed that 40% of the taxable employee retail spending is captured on-site, 10% is captured off-site in other retail locations in City of Dublin, while remaining 50% is captured by retail located outside the City. See Appendix 9A. Taxable expenditures by residents are estimated based on the estimated household income for each residential prototype (Appendix 9B), and the average percentage of income spent on taxable expenditures for the residents of the Nine County Bay Area. KMA has assumed that 20% of the taxable household retail spending is captured on- site, 30% is captured off-site in other retail locations in City of Dublin, while the remaining 50% is captured by retail located outside the City. See Appendix 9B. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 16 \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx  Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) – This analysis assumes a 150-room, upscale extended stay hotel with each room containing a fully equipped kitchen. The number of rooms reflects the applicant’s current development program, which allows for 150 to 155 rooms, while the hotel class and format is consistent with the letter of intent from a hotel operator that was presented in a prior planning application. This analysis conservatively assumes that the proposed hotel will generate an average room rate of $185, which is equal to the inflation-adjusted room rate of competitive hotels in the market area identified in the CBRE report, “Market Demand Analysis of Proposed Hotels in Dublin” (October 19, 2017). Note that the CBRE report finds that the subject hotel has the potential to achieve a 15% premium over prevailing room rates, which is not assumed in this analysis. Based on current occupancy rates of competing hotels and the CBRE projection, it is estimated that the hotel will achieve an average occupancy rate of 80% upon stabilization. Per Dublin Municipal Code (section 3.16.030), the transient occupancy tax rate in the City is 8%. See Appendix 10.  Business Registration Fees – The current initial business registration fee is $92 per business and the annual renewal rate is $26. The total number of businesses upon buildout is estimated based on the following assumed average square feet per business: 3,000 square feet for retail and restaurants and 5,000 square feet for medical office tenants. It is assumed that the Project will also include one gas station/ convenience store, one theater, one theater restaurant, and one hotel. See Appendix 11.  Franchise Fees – The estimate of Franchise Fees is based on the per capita (service population) figure derived from revenue data from the City’s 2019/20 budget. See Appendix 12.  General Fund Expenditures – This fiscal impact analysis uses average cost multipliers derived from the City of Dublin’s 2019-20 Budget Summary to project General Fund costs for providing public services. Estimates of police, public works, fire, community development, and other administrative departments’ costs are based on the current city cost per service population, while the cost estimate for parks and community services is based on the current cost per city resident. The cost to maintain new public infrastructure that will be built as part of the project was estimated by the City’s Public Works Department based on the prior development application and has been adjusted to 2019 dollars using the national CPI. See Appendices 13 to 19.  Total Annual General Fund Impacts versus Net New Annual General Fund Impacts – Given that the development site is vacant, the difference between the total fiscal impacts of the project and the net new impacts of the project is the amount of annual property tax revenue that the development site generated to the City prior to the development team’s acquisition of the site in 2017. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 17 \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx  Construction-related Sales/Use Tax Revenues – The Construction use tax revenue estimate is based on cost information provided by Shea Properties. Hard cost factors for commercial and rental residential have been derived from the development budget provided by Shea Properties in June 2018 for the previous development program. Cost factors were adjusted for inflation and applied to the currently proposed commercial and rental residential building areas. Hard costs of for-sale residential are based on updated cost estimates provided by Shea Properties in December 2019. The use tax revenue estimate reflects the assumption that the City of Dublin is designated as the point of sale by the general and sub-contractors for 50% of the materials purchased for the construction of the Project and that materials costs account for 50% of hard construction costs. See Appendix 20A. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 18 \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx V. LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. The analysis contained in this document is based, in part, on data provided by third parties and published data sources. While Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) believes that the sources consulted are reliable, we cannot guarantee their accuracy. 2. A projection of economic and fiscal impacts is inherently based on judgment. The projections contained herein are based on the best information available at the time that this document was prepared. Actual impacts are likely to vary from the estimates contained in this report. 3. The analysis assumes that the economy will continue to grow at a moderate rate. 4. Revenue projections are based on the best project-specific and fiscal data available at this time as well as experience with comparable projects. Material changes to costs, development program, or project performance may render the conclusions contained herein invalid. 5. Revenue estimates are based on the assumption that sufficient market support exists for the proposed uses and that the Project will achieve industry standard productivity levels. 6. It is assumed that all applicable laws and governmental regulations in place as of the date of this document will remain unchanged throughout the projection period. In the event that this does not hold true, for example, if any tax rate changes, the analysis would need to be revised. 7. KMA is not liable for the accuracy of any abstracts, excerpts or summaries of this report that are not prepared by KMA. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 19 \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx VI.APPENDIX TABLES Fiscal Impacts of the Proposed (entire) Project Appendix 1: Summary of Annual Fiscal Impacts to the City of Dublin Appendix 2: FY 2019/20 City of Dublin Demographics Appendix 3A: Proposed Land Use Summary Appendix 3B: Proposed Residential Unit Mix Appendix 3C: Proposed Commercial Tenant Mix Appendix 4: Estimated Project Demographics Appendix 5A: Estimated Assessed Value Appendix 5B: Project Assessed Land Values: FY 2017/18 and FY 2019/20 Appendix 6: Estimate of Annual Base Property Tax Revenues Appendix 7: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Property Transfer Tax Revenues Appendix 8: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee Revenues Appendix 9A: Estimate of Annual Sales Tax Revenues from Retail Sales and Employee Spending Appendix 9B: Estimate of Annual Sales Tax Revenues from Resident Spending Appendix 10: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Revenues Appendix 11: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Business Registration Fees Appendix 12: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Franchise Fee Revenues Appendix 13: Estimate of Annual General Fund Police Services Costs Appendix 14: Estimate of Annual General Fund Parks and Community Services Costs Appendix 15: Estimate of Annual General Fund Public Works Costs Appendix 16: Estimate of Annual General Fund Project Specific Public Works Costs Appendix 17: Estimate of Annual General Fund Fire Services Costs Appendix 18: Estimate of Annual General Fund Community Development Costs Appendix 19: Estimate of Annual General Fund Other Departments Costs Appendix 20A: Estimate of One-time Sales and Use Tax and Employment Created by Construction Activities Appendix 20B: Estimate of One-time Property Transfer Tax from Purchase of the Site and from For-Sale Units Appendix 21: FY 2019/20 General Fund Summary Fiscal Impacts of the Residential Component Appendix 22: Summary of Annual Fiscal Impacts to the City of Dublin- Residential Only Appendix 23: Estimated Project Demographics- Residential Only Appendix 24: Estimated Assessed Value- Residential Only Appendix 25: Estimate of Annual Property Tax Revenues- Residential Only Appendix 26: Estimate of Annual Property Transfer Tax Revenues- Residential Only Appendix 27: Estimate of Annual Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee Revenues- Residential Only Appendix 28: Estimate of Annual Sales Tax Revenues from Resident Spending Appendix 29: Estimate of Annual Franchise Fee Revenues- Residential Only Appendix 30: Estimate of Annual Police Services Costs- Residential Only Appendix 31: Estimate of Annual Parks and Community Services Costs- Residential Only Appendix 32A: Estimate of Annual Public Works Costs- Residential Only Appendix 32B: Estimate of Annual Project Specific Public Works Costs- Residential Only Appendix 33: Estimate of Annual Fire Services Costs- Residential Only Appendix 34: Estimate of Annual Community Development Costs- Residential Only Appendix 35: Estimate of Annual Other Departments Costs- Residential Only Appendix 36A: Estimate of One-time Sales and Use Tax from Construction Activities- Residential Only Appendix 36B: Est. of One-time Prop. Transfer Tax from Site Purchase and from For-Sale Units- Residential Only Appendix 1: Summary of Annual Fiscal Impacts to the City of Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin Total Net New Annual Impacts Annual Impacts1 I. Annual Recurring General Fund Impacts upon Buildout Revenues2 Property Tax $1,473,000 $1,464,000 Property Transfer Tax $38,000 $38,000 Property Tax In-lieu of VLF $261,000 $261,000 Sales Tax $388,000 $388,000 Transient Occupancy Tax $647,000 $647,000 Business Registration Fee $1,000 $1,000 Franchise Fees $109,000 $109,000 Total Revenues $2,917,000 $2,908,000 Expenditures3 Police Services Cost ($400,000)($400,000) Parks and Community Services Cost ($41,000)($41,000) Public Works Cost ($120,000)($120,000) Project Specific Public Works ($77,000)($77,000) Fire Services Cost ($238,000)($238,000) Community Development Cost ($3,000)($3,000) Other Department Cost4 ($48,000)($48,000) Total Expenditures ($927,000)($927,000) Net Annual Fiscal Surplus/(Deficit)$1,990,000 $1,981,000 $ Total II. One-time Construction Related Revenues Sales and Use Tax Generated from Construction Material Purchases5 $770,000 Initial Prop. Transfer Tax from Land Sale Transaction6 $70,000 Initial Prop.Transfer Tax from For-Sale Units6 $222,000 Total One-time Revenues $1,062,000 Figures rounded 1.FY 2017/18 has been assumed as the base year to calculate the net new annual impacts of the project. In FY 2017/18, the site generated property tax revenues on the basis of the assessed values of its (vacant) land parcels. 2.See Appendices 6 to 12 for individual revenue calculations and assumptions. 4.Includes City Council, Office of the City Manager, City Clerk's Office, Human Resources Department, City Attorney's Office and Administrative Services department expenditures. 5.See Appendix 20A for details. 6.See Appendix 20B for details. 3.See Appendices 13 to 19 for individual expenditure calculations and assumptions. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 20 Appendix 2: FY 2019/20 City of Dublin Demographics Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin FY 2019/20 Population1 66,147 Households1 21,593 Employment1 22,237 Service Population2 77,000 rounded Average Household Income1 $179,754 Average Household Size1 2.81 1. Source: ESRI Business Analyst. 2. Service Population calculated as resident population plus half of employment population. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 21 Appendix 3A: Proposed Land Use Summary Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin Gross Res.Commercial Hotel Land Use Designation Acres1 Units Sq. Ft.Rooms Commercial 19.2 0 240,000 150 Retail, Restaurants, and Services 54,000 Medical Office 45,000 Movie Theater 66,000 Hotel2 75,000 150 Multi-Family Apartments 4.0 240 0 0 Single Family Detached 51.2 326 0 0 Single Family: Cluster 15 Single Family: Traditional 115 Age-Restricted (55+): Duet 99 Age-Restricted (55+): Cluster 97 Parks/Open Space 2.5 Total 76.9 566 240,000 150 Source: City of Dublin based on applicant's submittal in October 2019. 1.Gross Acreage is the Net Site Area plus 25 ft of the area of the abutting streets. Acreage by land use estimated by KMA based on site plan. 2. Develper estimates 150-155 keys. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 22 Appendix 3B: Proposed Residential Unit Mix Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin Number of Avg. Area Residential Type Units Per Unit (SF)2 Multifamily Apartments1 Studios 12 558 1 Bedroom 132 741 2 Bedroom 84 1,113 3 Bedroom 12 1,380 Subtotal/Average 240 894 Single Family Detached1 Single Family: Cluster 15 2,247 Single Family: Traditional 115 2,935 Age-Restricted (55+): Duet 99 1,927 Age-Restricted (55+): Cluster 97 2,131 Subtotal/Average 326 2,358 Total Residential Units 566 Source: City of Dublin based on applicant's submittal in October 2019. 1. Unit mix and product type is based on the current site development plan and is subject to change. 2. Average unit size of multifamily apartments is based on June 2018 development plan. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 23 Appendix 3C: Proposed Commercial Tenant Mix Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin Commerical Square Feet Total Commercial 240,000 SF Gas Station/ Convenience Store 2,000 SF Restaurant (including Quick Service)34,000 SF Retail Service and Soft Goods 18,000 SF Movie Theater (excluding Restaurant)58,000 SF Movie Theater Restaurant 8,000 SF Hotel 75,000 SF Medical Office 45,000 SF Source: City of Dublin based on applicant's submittal in October 2019. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 24 Appendix 4: Estimated Project Demographics Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin Residential Average Household Size1 2.81 Residential Vacancy1 4.20% Total Residential Units2 566 Resident Population 1,524 Commercial Employment Commercial Vacancy3 5% Area (SF)/SF/ Employee or Total Commercial Type4 Rooms4 Rooms/Emp.3 Employees Gas Station/ Convenience Store 2,000 SF 600 3 Restaurant 34,000 SF 200 162 Retail Service and Soft Goods 18,000 SF 400 43 Movie Theater5 58,000 SF 1,000 58 Hotel5 150 rooms 0.9 135 Medical Office 45,000 SF 250 171 Total Employees 572 Service Population6 1,810 1. Source: ESRI Business Analyst. 2. See Appendix 3B. 3. KMA Assumption. 4. See Appendix 3C. 5. Does not include vacancy factor. 6. Service Population calculated as resident population plus half of employment. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 25 Appendix 5A: Estimated Assessed Value Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin Total Estimated Assessed Value upon Buildout Commercial $149,000,000 rounded Rental Residential $88,000,000 rounded For-Sale Residential $404,000,000 rounded Total Estimated AV upon buildout $641,000,000 for detailed calculations see below Assessed Value of Commercial Properties upon Buildout Estimated APN1 Tax Area2 Area (Acres)2 Land Value2 985-0051-004 26-023 1.0 $1,080,105 985-0051-005 26-023 17.3 $18,538,985 Total Estimated Commercial Land Value 18.3 $19,619,090 Est. Improvement Commercial Product Type Hard Cost4 Soft Cost5 Value Commercial - Retail & Restaurant $25,300,000 $5,060,000 $30,360,000 Commercial - Movie Theater $31,000,000 $6,200,000 $37,200,000 Commercial - Medical Office $21,100,000 $4,220,000 $25,320,000 Hotel - 150 Keys $30,800,000 $6,160,000 $36,960,000 Total Estimated Improvement Value of Commercial Development $129,840,000 Total Estimated Assessed Value of Commercial Development6 $149,459,000 Assessed Value of Rental (high density) Residential Properties upon Buildout Estimated APN1 Tax Area2 Area (Acres)3 Land Value2 985-0051-004 26-023 0.2 $225,495 985-0051-005 26-023 3.6 $3,870,415 Total Estimated Multifamily Land Value 3.8 $4,095,910 Est. Improvement Residential Product Type Hard Cost4 Soft Cost5 Value Multifamily Apartments $69,600,000 $13,920,000 $83,520,000 Total Est. Assessed Value of Rental Residential Development $87,616,000 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 26 Appendix 5A: Estimated Assessed Value Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin Assessed Value of For-sale Residential Properties upon Buildout Sale Price Est. Assessed For-Sale Residential Product Type Per Unit8 No. of Units Value Single Family: Cluster 1,169,000$ 15 $17,535,000 Single Family: Traditional 1,410,835$ 115 $162,246,025 Age-Restricted (55+): Duet 1,051,000$ 99 $104,049,000 Age-Restricted (55+): Cluster 1,243,000$ 97 $120,571,000 Total Est. Assessed Value of For-sale Residential Development $404,401,000 Total Estimated Assessed Value upon Buildout $641,000,000 <Less> FY 2017/18 Total Assessed Value (Land Value)7 -$4,284,468 Net New Assessed Value upon Buildout $637,000,000 Note: Final Figure rounded to closest 1,000,000s. 1. Per City of Dublin based on applicant's submittal in October 2019. 2. Source: RealQuest, see Appendix 5B for details. For the purpose of this analysis, land value of completed project has been assumed to be equal to FY 2019/20 assessed land value. 3. Per the Site Plan (June 4, 2019), parcels 985-0051-004 & -005 (22.14 acres) are designated for mixed-use (commercial and rental residential). See Appendix 5B for distribution of land area for the two parcels. 4. See Appendix 20A for hard cost assumptions. 5. KMA estimates that a portion of soft costs would be included in assessed values. The portion assumed is equivalent to 20% of hard costs. 6. KMA has not included the unsecured assessed values in this analysis. 7. See Appendix 5B for details. FY 2017/18, which reflects the value of the property prior to its purchase by the development team, has been assumed as the base year to estimate the net new annual impacts of the project. 8. Pricing provided by Shea Properties in December 2019. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 27 Appendix 5B: Project Assessed Land Values: FY 2017/18 and FY 2019/20 Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin Tax Area FY 2017/18 FY 2019/20 APN Area1 (Acres)1 Land AV1 Land AV1 Commercial Rental Res.For-sale Res.Total Commercial Rental Res.For-sale Res.Total 985-0051-004 26-023 1.22 $63,505 $1,305,600 $52,537 $10,968 $63,505 $1,080,105 $225,495.27 $1,305,600 985-0051-005 26-023 20.92 $1,178,117 $22,409,400 $974,640 $203,477 $1,178,117 $18,538,985 $3,870,414.84 $22,409,400 985-0051-0062 26-023 30.26 $1,704,308 $32,425,800 $1,704,308 $1,704,308 $32,425,800 $32,425,800 985-0052-024 26-023 20.70 $1,165,580 $22,174,800 $1,165,580 $1,165,580 $22,174,800 $22,174,800 985-0052-025 26-023 3.07 $172,958 $3,284,400 $172,958 $172,958 $3,284,400 $3,284,400 Totals 76.17 $4,284,468 $81,600,000 $1,027,177 $214,445 $3,042,846 $4,284,468 $19,619,090 $4,095,910 $57,885,000 $81,600,000 Notes: 1. Source: RealQuest 2. As per the Site Plan (June 4, 2019), Parcels 985-0051-004 and -005 (total area = 22.14 acres) are designated for mixed-use (commercial and rental residential). KMA has assumed the following distribution of land area per land use for the two parcels: Land Use Acres % Total Comments Commercial 18.32 83%KMA assumption Rental Residential 3.82 17%KMA assumption 22.14 100% FY 2019/20 Assessed Land Value DistributionFY 2017/18 Assessed Land Value Distribution Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 28 Appendix 6: Estimate of Annual Base Property Tax Revenues Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin Total New1 Total Estimated Assessed Value2 $641,000,000 $637,000,000 Base 1% Property Tax Levy $6,410,000 $6,370,000 Tax Rate Area 26-023 26-023 City of Dublin General Fund's portion of Base 1% Property Tax (Post-ERAF)3 22.98%22.98% Estimate of Annual Property Tax Revenues $1,473,000 $1,464,000 Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s. 1. FY 2017/18 has been assumed as the base year to estimate the new annual impacts of the project. 2. See Appendix 5A for details. 3. Estimated based on 19-20 ERAF Contribution Percentages Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 29 Appendix 7: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Property Transfer Tax Revenues Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin Transfer Tax Rate per $1,000 of Assessed Value1 $0.55 Holding Period Assumptions Multifamily Apartments2 20 years Single Family Detached2 7 years Commercial2 20 years Est. Assessed Property Land Use Value3 Transfer Tax Residential Multifamily Apartments $87,616,000 $2,409 Single Family Detached $404,401,000 $31,774 Commercial $149,459,000 $4,110 Totals $641,000,000 $38,000 Estimate of Annual Property Transfer Tax Revenues $38,000 Note: Figures rounded 1. Source: http://www.californiacityfinance.com/PropTransfTaxRates.pdf, accessed 07/03/2018. 2. KMA Assumption. 3. See Appendix 5 for details. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 30 Appendix 8: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee Revenues Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin 2004-05 Vehicle License Fee Adjusted Amount1,2 $2,278,846 2004-05 Assessed Valuation1,2 $5,553,452,954 VLF per $1,000 in AV Growth $0.41 Estimated Assessed Value Upon Buildout3 $641,000,000 <Less> FY 2017/18 Assessed Value (Land Value)4 ($4,284,468) Total Estimated Net New Assessed Value upon Buildout $636,715,532 Estimate of Annual Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF Revenues $261,000 Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s 1. As per SB 1096, growth of property tax in lieu of VLF is proportional to growth in AV since 2004/05. 2. VLF distribution in 2004/05 per the California State Controller's Office. 3. See Appendix 5A. 4. See Appendix 5B for details. FY 2017/18 has been assumed as the base year to estimate the net new annual impacts from the project. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 31 Appendix 9A: Estimate of Annual Sales Tax Revenues from Retail Sales and Employee Spending Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin City of Dublin's share of sales tax of total taxable Sales1 1.00% Sales Tax from Retail Activities Estimated Taxable Retail Sales per Square Foot2 $430 Total Retail Square Feet3 54,000 Estimated Total Taxable Retail Sales $23,195,000 Estimated Sales Tax from Retail Activities $232,000 Sales Tax from Theater Estimated Taxable (F&B) Theater Retail Sales4 $7,907,000 Estimated Sales Tax from Theater Activities $79,000 Sales Tax from Off-Site Employee Spending Weekly Employee Spending on Retail5 $15 Weeks at Work per Year6 50 Average Annual Retail Spending per Employee $730 City of Dublin (off-site) Capture Rate7 10% Onsite Capture Rate7 40% Employee Spending Captured Outside City of Dublin7 50% 100% Annual Income Spent on off-site Retail Sales in Dublin per Employee $73 New Employment8 572 Estimated Off-site Taxable Sales from Employee Spending $42,000 Estimated Sales Tax from Off-site Employee Spending $420 Estimate of Annual Sales Tax Revenues from Retail Sales and Employee Spending $311,000 Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s. 1. Source: Dublin Municipal Code 2. This is based on average per square foot taxable sales generated by Persimmon Place in Dublin (includes vacancy). Factor has been adjusted to $2019 using national CPI. 3. See Appendix 3; Excludes hotel and movie theater. 4. As per Shea Properties, total revenue from theater/cinema is estimated to be $15-$16 million with 50% being Food and Beverage (F&B) sales. Factor has been adjusted to $2019 using national CPI. 5. Based on weekly employee restaurant spending in the vicinity of the workplace, as reported in the ICSC report, "Office Worker Retail Spending in a Digital Age" (2012), for suburban workers, assuming 50 weeks at work per year. Figures adjusted to $2019 using national CPI. 6. KMA assumption. 7. KMA has assumed that 40% of the taxable employee retail spending is captured on-site, 10% is captured off-site in other retail locations in City of Dublin, while remaining 50% is captured by retail located outside the City. 8. See Appendix 4. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 32 Appendix 9B: Estimate of Annual Sales Tax Revenues from Resident Spending Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin City of Dublin's share of sales tax of total taxable Sales1 1.00% Percentage of Household Income Spent on Taxable Retail Sales2 26.5% No. of Monthly Est. HH HH Taxable Total Retail Rental Multi-Family HH3 Area (SF)4 Rent5 Income6 Retail Spending Spending Studios 11 558 $1,902 $76,000 $20,149 $221,635 1 Bedroom 125 741 $2,525 $101,000 $26,777 $3,347,064 2 Bedroom 80 1,113 $3,793 $152,000 $40,297 $3,223,786 3 Bedroom 11 1,380 $4,703 $188,000 $49,841 $548,256 Estimated Taxable Retail Spending by Multifamily Residential HH $7,340,741 City of Dublin (off-site) Capture Rate7 30% Onsite Capture Rate7 20% Spending Captured Outside City of Dublin7 50% 100% Estimated Off-site Taxable Sales from Multifamily Resident Spending $2,202,000 Estimated Sales Tax from off-site Multifamily Resident Spending $22,000 No. of Est. Sale Est. HH HH Taxable Total Retail For-sale Units HH3 Area (SF)4 Price8 Income9 Retail Spending Spending SF: Cluster 14 2,247 $1,169,000 $212,000 $56,204 $786,858 SF: Traditional 109 2,935 $1,410,835 $256,000 $67,869 $7,397,741 55+: Duet 94 1,927 $1,051,000 $191,000 $50,637 $4,759,857 55+: Cluster 92 2,131 $1,243,000 $226,000 $59,916 $5,512,250 Estimated Taxable Retail Spending by For-sale Residential HH $18,456,706 City of Dublin (off-site) Capture Rate7 30% Onsite Capture Rate7 20% Spending Captured Outside City of Dublin7 50% 100% Estimated off-site Taxable Sales from for-sale Units' Resident Spending $5,537,000 Estimated Sales Tax from off-site for-sale Units' Resident Spending $55,000 Estimate of Annual Sales Tax Revenues from Resident Spending $77,000 Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s. 1. Source: Dublin Municipal Code. 2. Based on the average percentage of income spent on Retail and Food services for Nine County Bay Area residents; Source: CA Board of Equalization (2017). 3. Includes a 5% vacancy factor. 4. See Appendix 3B. 5. Estimated on the basis of $3.41/SF. 6. Estimated based on the assumption that 30% of the annual household income goes towards rent. 7. KMA assumption. 8. Based on range provided by Shea Properties. 9. Estimated based on the assumption that 30% of the household income goes towards mortgage payment. Mortgage is calculated as a self amortizing 30 year loan at 5.5% on 80% of the sale price. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 33 Appendix 10: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Revenues Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin Hotel 1: Upscale Extended Stay Hotel Estimated Number of Rooms (Keys)150 Annual Room Nights 54,750 Average Daily Rate (ADR in $2019) 1, 2 $185 Occupancy upon Stablization1 80% Hotel Revenue Generated $8,088,663 TOT Revenues Total Hotel Revenue Generated $8,088,663 City of Dublin TOT Rate3 8% Estimate of Annual Transient Occupancy Tax Revenues $647,000 Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s 1. As per CBRE (Report dated October 19, 2017). 2. Room rate reflects inflation-adjusted average of competitive hotels in the market area. The CBRE report projects a 15% room rate premium for the subject hotel which is not assumed in this analysis. 3. Source: Dublin Municipal Code (section 3.16.030). Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 34 Appendix 11: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Business License Registration Fees Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin Annual Business License Registration Fee per business1 $26 Estimated Avg.# of Business Reg. Commercial2 Program2 SF per Business3 Businesses Fees Total Commercial Gas Station/ Convenience Store 2,000 SF 2,000 1 $26 Restaurant (including Quick Servic 34,000 SF 3,000 11 $286 Retail Service and Soft Goods 18,000 SF 3,000 6 $156 Movie Theater (excluding Restaura 58,000 SF 58,000 1 $26 Movie Theater Restaurant 8,000 SF 8,000 1 $26 Hotel 150 keys 1 $26 Medical Office 45,000 SF 5,000 9 $234 Estimate of Annual Business Registration Fees $1,000 Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s 1. Source: City of Dublin; Initial fee amount is $92 per business, but thereafter the annual fee is $26 per business. 2. See Appendix 4 for details 3. KMA assumption Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 35 Appendix 12: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Franchise Fee Revenues Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin Franchise Fee FY 2019/201,2 $4,649,400 FY 2019/20 Service Population3 77,000 Estimated Franchise Fee per Service Population $60 New Service Population in the Plan Area4 1,810 Estimate of Annual Franchise Fee Revenues $109,000 Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s 1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Budget Summary FY 2019/20; See Appendix 21 for details. 2. Includes Electric, Gas, Garbage and Cable Franchise Taxes. 3. See Appendix 2. 4. See Appendix 4. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 36 Appendix 13: Estimate of Annual General Fund Police Services Costs Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin FY 2019/20 Police Services General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $22,880,699 Less Police Services General Fund Revenues1 ($160,209) Police Services Net General Fund Expenditures $22,720,490 FY 2019/20 Service Population2 77,000 Percentage Variable Factor 75% Adjusted Police Services Net Expenditure per Service Population $221 New Service Population in the Plan Area3 1,810 Estimate of Annual Police Services Costs $400,000 Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s 1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Budget Summary FY 2019/20; See Appendix 21 for details. 2. See Appendix 2. 3. See Appendix 4. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 37 Appendix 14: Estimate of Annual General Fund Parks and Community Services Costs Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin FY 2019/20 Parks and Community Services General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $8,892,352 Less Parks and Community Services General Fund Revenues1 ($5,334,960) Parks and Community Services Net General Fund Expenditures $3,557,392 FY 2019/20 Resident Population2 66,147 Percentage Variable Factor 50% Adjusted Parks and Comm. Services Net Expenditure per Resident Pop.$27 New Resident Population in the Plan Area3 1,524 Estimate of Annual Parks and Community Services Costs $41,000 Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s 1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Budget Summary FY 2019/20; See Appendix 21 for details. 2. See Appendix 2. 3. See Appendix 4. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 38 Appendix 15: Estimate of Annual General Fund Public Works Costs Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin FY 2019/20 Public Works General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $13,616,377 Less Environmental Services General Fund Revenues1 ($3,430,690) Public Works Net General Fund Expenditures $10,185,687 FY 2019/20 Service Population2 77,000 Percentage Variable Factor 50% Adjusted Public Works Net Expenditure per Resident Population $66 New Service Population in the Plan Area3 1,810 Projected Annual Public Works Cost $120,000 Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s 1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Budget Summary FY 2019/20; See Appendix 21 for details. 2. See Appendix 2. 3. See Appendix 4. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 39 Appendix 16: Estimate of Annual General Fund Project-Specific Public Works Costs Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin Frequency Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost (in Years)Annual Cost Street Lights 200 HPSV1 40 ea $125.34 1 $5,014 100 MH2 - ea $125.34 1 $0 70 MH2 - ea $48.43 1 $0 Landscaping4 6'-planter3 61,140 sf $0.55 1 $33,627 16'-median2 - sf $0.55 1 $0 trees2 - ea $22.55 1 $0 AC Pavement slurry seal5 198,615 sf $0.25 5 $9,931 ac overlay5 198,615 sf $2.00 18 $22,068 Concrete Curb & Gutter street sweeping6 2.14 miles $23.20 1 $50 Draingage CDS units2 - ea $2,000.00 1 $0 Traffic Signal energy7 2 ea $840.00 1 $1,680 maintenance7 2 ea $1,680.00 1 $3,360 Annual Project Specific Public Works Estimate $75,729 Inflation Adjustment to 2019$2%$77,266 Source: City of Dublin, based on June 2018 project plans 1. Tassajara 9; Brannigan 21; Central 6; Dublin Blvd 4 2. Info not provided on type 3. Tassajara 21,050 SF; Brannigan 19,200 SF; Gleason 7,970 SF; Central 6,740 SF; Dublin Blvd 6,180 SF 4. Does not account for benches or bus shelters 5. Tassajara 53900 SF; Brannigan 42,320 SF; Gleason 34,020 SF; Central 14,790 SF; Dublin Blvd 53,585 SF 6. Tassajara 3,220 LF; Brannigan 3,050 LF; Gleason 1,690 LF; Central 1,760 LF; 1,570 LF 7. Tassajara 1 new; Gleason 1 relocate; Central 1 relocate; Dublin Blvd 1 new, 2 relocate Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 40 Appendix 17: Estimate of Annual General Fund Fire Protection Services Costs Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin FY 2019/20 Fire Services General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $14,534,573 Less Fire Services General Fund Revenues1 ($1,021,170) Fire Services Net General Fund Expenditures $13,513,403 FY 2019/20 Service Population2 77,000 Percentage Variable Factor 75% Adjusted Fire Services Net Expenditure per Service Population $132 New Service Population in the Plan Area3 1,810 Projected Annual Fire Services Cost $238,000 Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s 1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Budget Summary FY 2019/20; See Appendix 21 for details. 2. See Appendix 2. 3. See Appendix 4. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 41 Appendix 18: Estimate of Annual General Fund Community Development Costs Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin FY 2019/20 Community Developments General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $6,044,749 Less Community Development General Fund Revenues1 ($5,482,882) Community Development Net General Fund Expenditures $561,867 FY 2019/20 Service Population2 77,000 Percentage Variable Factor 25% Adjusted Community Development Net Expenditure per Service Population $2 New Service Population in the Plan Area3 1,810 Projected Annual Community Development Cost $3,000 Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s 1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Budget Summary FY 2019/20; See Appendix 21 for details. 2. See Appendix 2. 3. See Appendix 4. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 42 Appendix 19: Estimate of Annual General Fund Other Departments Costs Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin FY 2019/20 City Council General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $513,787 Office of City Manager General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $2,724,108 City Clerk Office's General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $596,467 Human Resources Department General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $1,364,238 City Attorney Office's General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $927,780 Administrative Services Department General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $2,124,795 Total Other Departments General Fund Portion of Expenditures $8,251,175 Less General and Administrative General Fund Revenues1 ($26,816) Other Departments Net General Fund Expenditures $8,224,359 FY 2019/20 Service Population2 77,000 Percentage Variable Factor 25% Adjusted Other Department Net Expenditure per Service Population $27 New Service Population in the Plan Area3 1,810 Projected Annual Other Department Costs $48,000 Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s 1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Budget Summary FY 2019/20; See Appendix 21 for details. 2. See Appendix 2. 3. See Appendix 4. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 43 Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin Total Hard Cost Factor1 Commercial - Retail and Restaurant 54,000 SF $469/SF $25,300,000 Commercial - Movie Theater 66,000 SF $469/SF $31,000,000 Commercial - Medical Office 45,000 SF $469/SF $21,100,000 Hotel - 150 Keys 150 keys $205,000/key $30,800,000 Multifamily Apartments 240 du $290,000/du $69,600,000 Single Family: Cluster 15 du $510,638/du $7,700,000 Single Family: Traditional 115 du $423,010/du $48,600,000 Age-Restricted (55+): Duet 99 du $387,931/du $38,400,000 Age-Restricted (55+): Cluster 97 du $383,688/du $37,200,000 Total Hard Cost $309,700,000 Estimated Construction Material Cost as a percentage of Hard Costs2 50% Estimated Share with Dublin as a point of Sale3 50% Estimated Construction Material Sales in City of Dublin $77,425,000 Local Sales and Use Tax Rate 1% Total One-time Sales and Use Tax Revenues During Construction $770,000 Construction Jobs Esimated Labor Cost as a percentage of Hard Costs 50% $154,850,000 $77,160 Estimated Full-time Equivalent One-Year Construction Jobs5 2,007 Note: Figures rounded to closest 10,000s 1. Commercial and multifamily factors based on cost estimate provided by Shea Properties for June 2018 analysis. . Factors adjusted to $2019 using national CPI. Single family factors based on estimate provided by Shea Properties in Dec. 2019. 2. KMA assumption. 4. Source: Occupational Employment Statistics Survey (OES), May 2019. 5. Based on convention, employment counts reflect a one-year construciton period. Average Annual Wage for Construction Occupations in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, 20194 Estimated Construction Labor Costs Appendix 20A: Estimate of One-time Sales and Use Tax and Employment Created by Construction Activities 3. For the purpose of this analysis it is assumed that 50% of the material costs will generate sales/use tax revenue to the city of Dublin, by general and sub-contractors designating the job site in Dublin as the point of sale for the materials. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 44 Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin Transfer Tax Rate per $1,000 of Assessed Value1 $0.55 I. Property Transfer Tax from Purchase of Site and Sale to Affiliate 1. Land Sale Date2 12/20/2017 Sale Price2 $48,000,000 Transfer Tax generated from the land sale transaction $26,400 2. Land Sale Date2 6/29/2017 Sale Price2 $80,000,000 Transfer Tax generated from the land sale transaction $44,000 Transfer Tax generated from Land Sale Transactions $70,400 II. Initial Transfer Tax from For-sale Residential Est. Assessed Property Value3 Transfer Tax Single Family: Cluster $17,535,000 $9,644 Single Family: Traditional $162,246,025 $89,235 Age-Restricted (55+): Duet $104,049,000 $57,227 Age-Restricted (55+): Cluster $120,571,000 $66,314 Transfer Tax generated from Sale of for-sale residential units $222,000 Projected Total One-time Initial Property Transfer Tax $292,000 Note: Figures rounded. For the purpose of this analysis, commercial and rental residential development are not included in the initial Property Transfer tax calculation. 1. Source: http://www.californiacityfinance.com/PropTransfTaxRates.pdf, accessed 07/03/2018. 2. Source: Real Quest 3. See Appendix 5A for details. Appendix 20B: Estimate of One-time Property Transfer Tax from Purchase of Development Site and from Initial Sale of Ownership Units Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 45 Appendix 21: FY 2019/20 General Fund Summary Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin General Fund Revenues FY 2019-20 Basis of KMA Projection Included in the Analysis Property Taxes $46,874,754 assessed value, City share of 1% tax Sales Tax $21,227,378 est. project sales, empl. and resid. spending Property Transfer Tax $750,000 assessed value (AV), $0.55 per $1,000 of AV Transient Occupancy Tax $1,400,000 avg. daily room rate, and hotel occupancy Franchise Fees $4,649,400 service population Licenses (non-departmental)$137,000 only business license tax included Subtotal $75,038,532 Deducted from Expenditures Allocation by Department Licenses & Permits $4,908,815 $4,728,168 Community Dev. $77,010 Fire Services $13,637 Police Services $90,000 Public Works Finales and Penalties $107,432 $107,432 Police Services Use Of Money & Property $923,586 $655,338 Parks & Community Svcs. $268,248 Public Works Other Revenue $477,597 $299,655 Parks & Community Svcs. $177,942 Public Works Charges for Services $9,039,297 $26,816 Human Resources $754,714 Community Development $944,160 Fire Services $39,140 Police Services $4,379,967 Parks & Community Svcs. $2,894,500 Public Works Subtotal $15,456,727 Non-Departmental Revenues Excluded from the Analysis Reason for Exclusion Charges For Services $1,030,634 independent of project Use Of Money & Property $2,180,541 independent of project Other Revenue $538,184 independent of project Fines & Penalties $4,000 independent of project Intergovernmental-State $234,919 independent of project Subtotal $3,988,278 Total General Fund Revenue $94,483,537 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 46 Appendix 21: FY 2019/20 General Fund Summary Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin General Fund Expenditures1 General Fund Dept. General Net Portion Fund Revenues Expenditure City Council $513,787 $513,787 Office of City Manager $2,724,108 $2,724,108 City Clerk's Office $596,467 $596,467 Human Resources $1,364,238 ($26,816)$1,337,422 City Attorney's Office $927,780 $927,780 Administrative Services $2,124,795 $2,124,795 Community Development $6,044,749 ($5,482,882)$561,867 Fire Services $14,534,573 ($1,021,170)$13,513,403 Police Services $22,880,699 ($160,209)$22,720,490 Parks and Community Services $8,892,352 ($5,334,960)$3,557,392 Public Works $13,616,377 ($3,430,690)$10,185,687 $74,219,925 ($15,456,727)$58,763,198 Source: City of Dublin, California, FY 2019/20 General Fund Summary 1. Excludes Non-departmental. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 47 Appendix 22: Summary of Annual Fiscal Impacts to the City of Dublin- Residential Only Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin Total Net New Annual Impacts Annual Impacts1 I. Annual Recurring General Fund Impacts upon Buildout Revenues2 Property Tax $1,131,000 $1,124,000 Property Transfer Tax $34,000 $34,000 Property Tax In-lieu of VLF $201,000 $201,000 Sales Tax $77,000 $77,000 Franchise Fees $92,000 $92,000 Total Revenues $1,535,000 $1,528,000 Expenditures3 Police Services Cost ($337,000)($337,000) Parks and Community Services Cost ($41,000)($41,000) Public Works Cost ($101,000)($101,000) Project Specific Public Works ($65,000)($65,000) Fire Services Cost ($201,000)($201,000) Community Development Cost ($3,000)($3,000) Other Department Cost4 ($41,000)($41,000) Total Expenditures ($789,000)($789,000) Net Annual Fiscal Surplus/(Deficit)$746,000 $739,000 $ Total II. One-time Construction Related Revenues Sales and Use Tax Generated from Construction Material Purchases5 $500,000 Initial Prop. Transfer Tax from Land Sale Transactions6 $53,000 Initial Prop.Transfer Tax from For-Sale Units6 $222,000 Total One-time Revenues $775,000 1. FY 2017/18 has been assumed as the base year to calculate the net new annual impacts of the project. In FY 2017/18, the site generated property tax revenues on the basis of the assessed values of its (vacant) land parcels. 2. See Appendices 25 to 29 for individual revenue calculations and assumptions. 4. Includes City Council, Office of the City Manager, City Clerk's Office, Human Resources Department, City Attorney's Office and Administrative Services department expenditures. 5. See Appendix 36A for details. 6. See Appendix 36B for details. 3. See Appendices 30 to 35 for individual expenditure calculations and assumptions. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 48 Appendix 23: Estimated Project Demographics- Residential Only Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin Residential Average Household Size1 2.81 Residential Vacancy1 4.20% Total Residential Units2 566 Resident Population 1,524 Service Population3 1,524 1. Source: ESRI Business Analyst. 2. See Appendix 3B. 3. Service Population calculated as resident population plus half of employment. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 49 Appendix 24: Estimated Assessed Value- Residential Only Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin Estimated Assessed Value Commercial $0 Rental Residential $88,000,000 rounded For-Sale Residential $404,000,000 rounded Total Estimated AV upon buildout $492,000,000 for detailed calculations see below Assessed Value of Rental (high density) Residential Properties Estimated APN1 Tax Area2 Area (Acres)3 Land Value2 985-0051-004 and -005 26-023 3.8 $4,095,910 Est. Improvement Residential Product Type Hard Cost4 Soft Cost5 Value Multifamily Apartments $69,600,000 $13,920,000 $83,520,000 Total Est. Assessed Value of Rental Residential Development $87,616,000 Assessed Value of For-sale Residential Properties Sale Price Est. Assessed For-sale Residential Product Type Per Unit4 No. of Units1 Value Single Family: Cluster $1,169,000 15 $17,535,000 Single Family: Traditional $1,410,835 115 $162,246,025 Age-Restricted (55+): Duet $1,051,000 99 $104,049,000 Age-Restricted (55+): Cluster $1,243,000 97 $120,571,000 Total Est. Assessed Value of For-sale Residential Development $404,401,000 Total Est. Assessed Value upon Buildout $492,000,000 <Less> FY 2017/18 Assessed Value (Land Value)6 -$3,257,291 Net New Assessed Value upon Buildout $489,000,000 Note: Final Figure rounded to closest 1,000,000s. 1. Per City of Dublin based on applicant's submittal in October 2019. 2. Source: RealQuest, see Appendix 5B for details. For the purpose of this analysis, land value of completed project has been assumed to be equal to FY 2019/20 assessed land value. 3. Per the Site Plan (June 4, 2019), parcels 985-0051-004 & -005 (22.14 acres) are designated for mixed-use commercial and rental residential). See Appendix 5B for distribution of land area for the two parcels. 4. See Appendix 21A for hard cost assumptions. 5. KMA estimates that a portion of soft costs would be included in assessed values. The portion assumed is equivalent to 20% of hard costs. 6. Includes FY 2017/18 assessed land values attributable to the residential development. See Appendix 5B for details. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 50 Appendix 25: Estimate of Annual Property Tax Revenues- Residential Only Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin Total New1 Total Estimated Assessed Value2 $492,000,000 $489,000,000 Base 1% Property Tax Levy $4,920,000 $4,890,000 Tax Rate Area 26-023 26-023 City of Dublin General Fund's portion of Base 1% Property Tax (Post-ERAF)2 22.98%22.98% Estimate of Annual Property Tax Revenues $1,131,000 $1,124,000 Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s. 1. FY 2017/18 has been assumed as the base year to estimate the new annual impacts of the project. 2. See Appendix 24 for details. 3. Estimated based on 19-20 ERAF Contribution Percentages Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 51 Appendix 26: Estimate of Annual Property Transfer Tax Revenues- Residential Only Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin Transfer Tax Rate per $1,000 of Assessed Value1 $0.55 Holding Period Assumptions Multifamily Apartments2 20 years Single Family Detached2 7 years Est. Assessed Property Land Use Value3 Transfer Tax Residential Multifamily Apartments $87,616,000 $2,409 Single Family Detached5 $404,401,000 $31,774 Total $492,000,000 $34,000 Estimate of Annual Property Transfer Tax Revenues $34,000 Note: Figures rounded 1. Source: http://www.californiacityfinance.com/PropTransfTaxRates.pdf, accessed 07/03/2018. 2. KMA Assumption. 3. See Appendix 24 for details. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 52 Appendix 27: Estimate of Annual Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee Revenues- Residential Only Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin 2004-05 Vehicle License Fee Adjusted Amount1,2 $2,278,846 2004-05 Assessed Valuation1,2 $5,553,452,954 VLF per $1,000 in AV Growth $0.41 Estimated Assessed Value Upon Buildout3 $492,000,000 <Less> FY 2017/18 Assessed Value (Land Value)4 ($3,257,291) Net New Assessed Value upon Buildout (rounded)$489,000,000 Estimate of Annual Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF Revenues $201,000 Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s 1. As per SB 1096, growth of property tax in lieu of VLF is proportional to growth in AV since 2004/05. 2. VLF distribution in 2004/05 per the California State Controller's Office. 3. See Appendix 24. 4. Includes FY 2017/18 assessed land values attributable to the residential development. See Appendix 5B for details. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 53 Appendix 28: Estimate of Annual Sales Tax Revenues from Resident Spending Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin City of Dublin's share of sales tax of total taxable Sales1 1.00% Percentage of Household Income Spent on Taxable Retail Sales2 26.5% No. of Monthly Est. HH HH Taxable Total Retail Rental Multi-Family HH3 Area (SF)4 Rent5 Income6 Retail Spending Spending Studios 11 558 $1,902 $76,000 $20,149 $221,635 1 Bedroom 125 741 $2,525 $101,000 $26,777 $3,347,064 2 Bedroom 80 1113 $3,793 $152,000 $40,297 $3,223,786 3 Bedroom 11 1380 $4,703 $188,000 $49,841 $548,256 Estimated Taxable Retail Spending by Multifamily Residential HH $7,340,741 City of Dublin (off-site) Capture Rate7 30% Onsite Capture Rate7 20% Spending Captured Outside City of Dublin7 50% 100% Estimated Off-site Taxable Sales from Multifamily Resident Spending $2,202,000 Estimated Sales Tax from off-site Multifamily Resident Spending $22,000 No. of Est. Sale Est. HH HH Taxable Total Retail For-sale Units HH3 Area (SF)4 Price8 Income9 Retail Spending Spending SF: Cluster 14 2247 $1,169,000 $212,000 $56,204 $786,858 SF: Traditional 109 2935 $1,410,835 $256,000 $67,869 $7,397,741 55+: Duet 94 1927 $1,051,000 $191,000 $50,637 $4,759,857 55+: Cluster 92 2131 $1,243,000 $226,000 $59,916 $5,512,250 Estimated Taxable Retail Spending by For-sale Residential HH $18,456,706 City of Dublin (off-site) Capture Rate7 30% Onsite Capture Rate7 20% Spending Captured Outside City of Dublin7 50% 100% Estimated off-site Taxable Sales from for-sale Units' Resident Spending $5,537,000 Estimated Sales Tax from off-site for-sale Units' Resident Spending $55,000 Estimate of Annual Sales Tax Revenues from Resident Spending $77,000 Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s. 1. Source: Dublin Municipal Code. 2. Based on the average percentage of income spent on Retail and Food services for Nine County Bay Area residents; Source: CA Board of Equalization (2017). 3. Includes a 5% vacancy factor. 4. See Appendix 3B. 5. Estimated on the basis of $3.41/SF. 6. Estimated based on the assumption that 30% of the annual household income goes towards rent. 7. KMA assumption. 8. Based on range provided by Shea Properties. 9. Estimated based on the assumption that 30% of the household income goes towards mortgage payment. Mortgage is calculated as a self amortizing 30 year loan at 5.5% on 80% of the sale price. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 54 Appendix 29: Estimate of Annual Franchise Fee Revenues- Residential Only Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin Franchise Fee 2019/201,2 $4,649,400 FY 2019/20 Service Population3 77,000 Estimated Franchise Fee per Service Population $60 New Service Population in the Plan Area4 1,524 Estimate of Annual Franchise Fee Revenues $92,000 Note: Figures rounded to closest 1000s 1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Budget Summary FY 2019/20; See Appendix 21 for details. 2. Includes Electric, Gas, Garbage and Cable Franchise Taxes. 3. See Appendix 2. 4. See Appendix 23. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 55 Appendix 30: Estimate of Annual Police Services Costs- Residential Only Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin FY 2019/20 Police Services General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $22,880,699 Less Police Services General Fund Revenues1 ($160,209) Police Services Net General Fund Expenditures $22,720,490 FY 2019/20 Service Population2 77,000 Percentage Variable Factor 75% Adjusted Police Services Net Expenditure per Service Population $221 New Service Population in the Plan Area3 1,524 Estimate of Annual Police Services Costs $337,000 Note: Figures rounded to closest 1000s 1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Budget Summary FY 2019/20; See Appendix 21 for details. 2. See Appendix 2. 3. See Appendix 23. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 56 Appendix 31: Estimate of Annual Parks and Community Services Costs- Residential Only Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin FY 2019/20 Parks and Community Services General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $8,892,352 Less Parks and Community Services General Fund Revenues1 ($5,334,960) Parks and Community Services Net General Fund Expenditures $3,557,392 FY 2019/20 Resident Population2 66,147 Percentage Variable Factor 50% Adjusted Parks and Comm. Services Net Expenditure per Resident Pop.$27 New Resident Population in the Plan Area3 1,524 Estimate of Annual Parks and Community Services Costs $41,000 Note: Figures rounded to closest 1000s 1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Budget Summary FY 2019/20; See Appendix 21 for details. 2. See Appendix 2. 3. See Appendix 23. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 57 Appendix 32A: Estimate of Annual Public Works Costs- Residential Only Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin FY 2019/20 Public Works General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $13,616,377 Less Environmental Services General Fund Revenues1 ($3,430,690) Public Works Net General Fund Expenditures $10,185,687 FY 2019/20 Service Population2 77,000 Percentage Variable Factor 50% Adjusted Public Works Net Expenditure per Resident Population $66 New Service Population in the Plan Area3 1,524 Estimate of Annual Public Works Costs $101,000 Note: Figures rounded to closest 1000s 1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Budget Summary FY 2019/20; See Appendix 21 for details. 2. See Appendix 2. 3. See Appendix 23. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 58 Appendix 32B: Estimate of Annual Project Specific Public Works Costs- Residential Only Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin Frequency Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost (in Years)Annual Cost Street Lights 200 HPSV1 40 ea $125.34 1 $5,014 100 MH2 - ea $125.34 1 $0 70 MH2 - ea $48.43 1 $0 Landscaping4 6'-planter3 61,140 sf $0.55 1 $33,627 16'-median2 - sf $0.55 1 $0 trees2 - ea $22.55 1 $0 AC Pavement slurry seal5 198,615 sf $0.25 5 $9,931 ac overlay5 198,615 sf $2.00 18 $22,068 Concrete Curb & Gutter street sweeping6 2.14 miles $23.20 1 $50 Draingage CDS units2 - ea $2,000.00 1 $0 Traffic Signal energy7 2 ea $840.00 1 $1,680 maintenance7 2 ea $1,680.00 1 $3,360 Total Annual Project Specific Public Works Estimate $75,729 Inflation Adjustment 2.03%$77,266 Service Population of entire Project upon Buildout 1,810 Service Population of Residential component 1,524 Estimate of Annual Project Specific Public Works Costs attributable to Residential Development10 84%of total estimates $65,000 Source: City of Dublin based on June 2018 project plans 1. Tassajara 9; Brannigan 21; Central 6; Dublin Blvd 4 2. Info not provided on type 3. Tassajara 21,050 SF; Brannigan 19,200 SF; Gleason 7,970 SF; Central 6,740 SF; Dublin Blvd 6,180 SF 4. Does not account for benches or bus shelters 5. Tassajara 53900 SF; Brannigan 42,320 SF; Gleason 34,020 SF; Central 14,790 SF; Dublin Blvd 53,585 SF 6. Tassajara 3,220 LF; Brannigan 3,050 LF; Gleason 1,690 LF; Central 1,760 LF; 1,570 LF 7. Tassajara 1 new; Gleason 1 relocate; Central 1 relocate; Dublin Blvd 1 new, 2 relocate 8. See Appendix 4 9. See Appendix 23 10. Estimated based on the portion of Service Population attributable to residential development. 100% of total serv. pop 84% of total serv. pop Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 59 Appendix 33: Estimate of Annual Fire Services Costs- Residential Only Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin FY 2019/20 Fire Services General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $14,534,573 Less Fire Services General Fund Revenues1 ($1,021,170) Fire Services Net General Fund Expenditures $13,513,403 FY 2019/20 Service Population2 77,000 Percentage Variable Factor 75% Adjusted Fire Services Net Expenditure per Service Population $132 New Service Population in the Plan Area3 1,524 Estimate of Annual Fire Services Costs $201,000 Note: Figures rounded to closest 1000s 1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Budget Summary FY 2019/20; See Appendix 21 for details. 2. See Appendix 2. 3. See Appendix 23. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 60 Appendix 34: Estimate of Annual Community Development Costs- Residential Only Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin FY 2019/20 Community Developments General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $6,044,749 Less Community Development General Fund Revenues1 ($5,482,882) Community Development Net General Fund Expenditures $561,867 FY 2019/20 Service Population2 77,000 Percentage Variable Factor 25% Adjusted Community Development Net Expenditure per Service Population $2 New Service Population in the Plan Area3 1,524 Estimate of Annual Community Development Costs $3,000 Note: Figures rounded to closest 1000s 1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Budget Summary FY 2019/20; See Appendix 21 for details. 2. See Appendix 2. 3. See Appendix 23. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 61 Appendix 35: Estimate of Annual Other Departments Costs- Residential Only Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin FY 2019/20 City Council General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $513,787 Office of City Manager General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $2,724,108 City Clerk Office's General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $596,467 Human Resources Department General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $1,337,422 City Attorney Office's General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $927,780 Administrative Services Department General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $2,124,795 Total Other Departments General Fund Portion of Expenditures $8,224,359 Less General and Administrative General Fund Revenues1 ($26,816) Other Departments Net General Fund Expenditures $8,197,543 FY 2019/20 Service Population2 77,000 Percentage Variable Factor 25% Adjusted Other Department Net Expenditure per Service Population $27 New Service Population in the Plan Area3 1,524 Estimate of Annual Other Department Costs $41,000 Note: Figures rounded to closest 1000s 1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Budget Summary FY 2019/20; See Appendix 21 for details. 2. See Appendix 2. 3. See Appendix 23. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 62 Appendix 36A: Estimate of One-time Sales and Use Tax from Construction Activities- Residential Only Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin Total Hard Cost1 Multifamily Apartments $69,600,000 Single Family Conventional $56,300,000 Single Family Age-Restricted $75,600,000 Total Hard Cost $201,500,000 Estimated Construction Material Cost as a percentage of Hard Costs2 50% Estimated Share with Dublin as a point of Sale3 50% Estimated Construction Material Sales in Dublin $50,375,000 Local Sales and Use Tax Rate 1% Estimate of Total One-time Sales and Use Tax Revenues During Construction $500,000 Note: Figures rounded to closest 10,000s 1. Appendix 20A. 2. KMA assumption. 3. For the purpose of this analysis it has been assume that 50% of the material costs will generate sales tax revenue to the city of Dublin, by general and sub-contractors designating the job site in Dublin as the point of sale for the materials. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 63 Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin Transfer Tax Rate per $1,000 of Assessed Value1 $0.55 I. Property Transfer Tax from Initial Purchase of Development Site and Sale to Affiliate 1.Sale Date2 12/20/2017 Sale Price (Portion attributable to Residential Development)2 $36,459,359 Transfer Tax generated from the land sale transaction $20,000 2. Sale Date2 6/29/2017 Sale Price (Portion attributable to Residential Development)2 $60,765,598 Transfer Tax generated from the land sale transaction $33,000 Transfer Tax generated from Land Sale Transaction $53,000 II. Initial Transfer Tax from For-sale Residential Est. Assessed Property Value2 Transfer Tax Single Family: Cluster $17,535,000 $9,644 Single Family: Traditional $162,246,025 $89,235 Age-Restricted (55+): Duet $104,049,000 $57,227 Age-Restricted (55+): Cluster $120,571,000 $66,314 Transfer Tax generated from Sale of for-sale residential units $222,000 Estimate of Total One-time Initial Property Transfer Tax $275,000 Note: Figures rounded 1. Source: http://www.californiacityfinance.com/PropTransfTaxRates.pdf, accessed 07/03/2018. 2. See Appendix 24 for details. Appendix 36B: Estimate of One-time Property Transfer Tax from Purchase of Development Site and from Initial Sale of Ownership Residential Units Only Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 64 1 RESOLUTION NO. XX – 20 AN RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FINDINGS, FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE AT DUBLIN PROJECT PLPA 2017-00061 (APNS 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, AND 985-0052-025) WHEREAS, the Applicant, Shea Properties in partnership with SCS Development Company, is requesting a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and Vesting Tentative Maps for the At Dublin project. The proposed project includes up to 566 residential units comprised of apartments, detached small-lot single-family homes and 55 and older age restricted single-family homes, up to 240,000 square feet of retail commercial development, and related infrastructure and landscape improvements. Requested land use approvals include a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezoning (Stage 1 and Stage 2), Vesting Tentative Map Nos. 8440, 8449 and 8452, a Street Vacation and a Development Agreement, among other related actions. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the “At Dublin Project” or the “Project;” and WHEREAS, the Project site is approximately 76.9 acres generally bound by Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive, Brannigan Street and I -580 (APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985- 0051-006, 985-0052-024, and 985-0052-025); and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documen ts be prepared. It was determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared to analyze the Project; and WHEREAS, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation, dated January 17, 2018, to public agencies and interested parties for consultation on the scope of the EIR. The City also conducted a public scoping meeting on January 30, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated July 2018 for the proposed Project that reflected the City’s independent judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project (SCH No. 2018012027). The Draft EIR is attached as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period from July 6, 2018 through August 20, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City received 12 comment letters from State, regional, and local agencies as well as interested individuals and organizations during the public review period and 1 additional letter from the City of Livermore after the close of the comment period. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the City prepared written responses to all the 2 comments received during the public comment period, including the letter from the City of Livermore. WHEREAS, the City prepared a Final EIR (that includes the Responses to Comments), dated October 2018, for the proposed Project, which included an annotated copy of each comment letter identifying specific comments, responses to each specific comment, and clarifications and minor corrections to information presented in the D raft EIR. The Final EIR is attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution and is incorporated herein by reference. The complete At Dublin Project EIR incorporates the Draft EIR and the Final EIR together. The responses to comments provide the City’s good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the comments; and WHEREAS, on October 30, 2018, after the release of the Final EIR, the City received additional comment letters regarding the EIR. These comments were reviewed, and it was determined that no new and/or substantial information was presented that was not previously evaluated per the City’s CEQA significance thresholds. Although responses to these comments are not required under CEQA, the City responded to them and as a result further clarification was made to EIR as attached to the November 20, 2018 City Council Staff Report. The changes to the EIR are attached as Exhibit C; and WHEREAS, in October 2019, the Applicant submitte d a revised Project in response to public comments, consisting of up to 566 residential units comprised of apartments, detached small-lot single family homes and 55 and older age restricted single-family homes, up to 240,000 square feet of retail commercial development, and related infrastructure and landscape improvements. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, the City analyzed the revised Project and determined that there was no new significant information, or substantially more severe, significant environmental impact as a result of the revised Project, requiring recirculation of the EIR. The Errata dated January 2020 is attached as Exhibit D to this Resolution and is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR identified potentially significant environmental effects anticipated as a result of the Project such as, aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards/hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, population and housing, public services and utilities, energy and transportation, most of which can be substantially reduced through mitigation measures; therefore, approval of the Project must include impact and mitigation findings as set forth in attached Exhibit E; and WHEREAS, some of the impacts cannot be lessened to a level of less than significan t; therefore, approval of the Project must include findings regarding alternatives as set forth in attached Exhibit F, and must include a Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in attached Exhibit G; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project on February 25, 2020 at which time they reviewed and considered the Draft and Final EIRs, and all reports, recommendations and testimony before them. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council deny the project and therefore did not take action on the EIR (Resolution No. 20-05); and 3 WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Planning Commission minute s and recommendation, a staff report, the Draft and Final EIRs, and all written and oral testimony at a duly noticed public hearing on June 16, 2020; and WHEREAS, Staff Report dated June 16, 2020 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project and Draft and Final EIR for the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Draft and Final EIRs reflect the City’s independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts and constitute the Environmental Impact Report for the At Dublin Project; and WHEREAS, the Draft and Final EIRs are separately bound documents, incorporated herein by reference, and are available for review in the City community development department, file PLPA-2017-00061. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings for the At Dublin project is the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA 94568; and WHEREAS, a Mitigation and Monitoring Program, as required by CEQA, is contained in attached Exhibit H. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council certifies the following. A. The EIR for the At Dublin project has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. B. The EIR for the At Dublin project was presented to and reviewed by the City Council prior to taking action on the AT Dublin project. C. The EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis as to the potential environmental effects of the At Dublin project. The EIR provides information to the decision- makers and the public on the environmental consequences of the Project. D. The EIR adequately describes the Project, its significant environmental impacts, mitigation measures and a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council certifies the EIR consisting of the Draft EIR as set forth in Exhibit A, the Final EIR as set forth in Exhibit B, amendments set forth in Exhibit C and Errata as set forth in Exhibit D, adopts the impact and mitigation findings set forth in Exhibit E, the findings regarding alternatives set forth in Exhibit F, the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Exhibit G, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in Exhibit H, which exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H are incorporated herein by reference PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 16th day of June 2020, by the following votes: AYES: 4 NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _____________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Due to the size of this attachment, please use link below to view in full Attachment 11 – Exhibit A to the Resolution - Draft EIR Due to the size of this document, please use link below to view Attachment 12. Exhibit B to the Resolution - Final EIR At Dublin City of Dublin Page-7-16 | Biological Resources Draft EIR 11/9/18 Nesting Birds The project has the potential to impact special-status and non-special-status native nesting birds (i.e., Loggerhead shrike and White-tailed kites) protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and/or California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). Baseline protections for most native birds under federal law and state codes include active nests (those with eggs or young). Recently, the U.S. Department of the Interior issued guidance clarifying that the MBTA only applies to intentional/deliberate killing, harm, or collection of covered species (including active nests). According to the guidance, unintentional impacts to birds/nests that occur within the context of otherwise lawful activities are not violations of the MBTA. However, ambiguity remains regarding application of the CFGC, as well as the extent to which minimization and avoidance measures are still required under the MBTA. Therefore, avoidance of nesting birds is considered a “best practice” in the San Francisco Bay region and avoids potential enforcement action by the CDFW. Nesting bird pre-construction survey obligations are a common component of various permits and authorizations, including CEQA documents and even local grading permits, and as such may be deemed applicable to project activities within the project area. Project activities, such as vegetation removal and ground disturbance associated with development, would have the potential to affect these species by causing direct mortality of eggs or young, or by causing auditory, vibratory, and/ or visual disturbance of a sufficient level to cause abandonment of an active nest. If project activities occur during the nesting season, which extends from February 1 through August 31, nests of both special-status and non-special- status native birds could be impacted by construction and other ground disturbing activities. Implementation of MM BIO-1.3: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level (Class II). Mitigation for Impact BIO-1 MM BIO-1.1: Special-Status Plants Avoidance and Mitigation Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for development activities involving ground disturbance, the project applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following: Prior to any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities, a focused survey shall be conducted to determine the presence of Congdon’s tarplant or other special-status species with potential to occur within the project area. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFG 2009). These guidelines require rare plant surveys to be conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both “evident” and identifiable. Field surveys shall be scheduled to coincide with known blooming periods, and/or during periods of physiological development that are necessary to identify the plant species of concern. If no special-status plant species are found, then the project will not have any impacts City of Dublin At Dublin Biological Resources | Page 7-17 Draft EIR 11/9/18 to the species and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. If any of the species are found on-site and cannot be avoided, the following measures shall be required: 1. If the survey determines that Congdon’s tarplant or other special-status species are present within or adjacent to the project site, direct and indirect impacts of the project on the species shall be avoided where feasible through the establishment of activity exclusion zones, where no ground-disturbing activities shall take place, including construction of new facilities, construction staging, or other temporary work areas. Activity exclusion zones for special-status plant species shall be established prior to construction activities around each occupied habitat site, the boundaries of which shall be clearly marked with standard orange plastic construction exclusion fencing or its equivalent. The establishment of activity exclusion zones shall not be required if no construction-related disturbances would occur within 250 feet of the occupied habitat site. The size of activity exclusion zones may be reduced through consultation with a qualified biologist and with concurrence from CDFW based on site-specific conditions. 2. If exclusion zones and avoidance of impacts on Congdon’s tarplant or other special- status species within the project area are not feasible, then the loss of individuals or occupied habitat of special-status plants shall be compensated for through the acquisition, protection, and subsequent management of other existing occurrences. Before the implementation of compensation measures, the project’s applicant shall provide detailed information to the CDFW and lead agency on the quality of preserved habitat, location of the preserved occurrences, provisions for protecting and managing the areas, the responsible parties involved, and other pertinent information that demonstrates that the feasibility of the compensation population will be properly preserved and managed. A mitigation plan identifying appropriate mitigation ratios at a minimum ratio of 1:1 [one preserved acre for each impacted acre] to ensure no net loss of acreage shall be developed in consultation with, and approved by, the CDFW and approved by the City prior to the commencement of any activities that would impact Congdon’s tarplant or other species with potential to occur within the project area. A mitigation plan may include but is not limited to the following: the acquisition of off-site mitigation areas presently supporting the Congdon’s tarplant or other special-status species, purchase of credits in a mitigation bank that is approved to sell credits for special-status plants, or payment of in-lieu fees to a public agency or conservation organization (e.g., a local land trust) for the preservation and management of existing populations of special-status plants. MM BIO-1.2: Burrowing Owl Avoidance, and Exclusion and Required Measures Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for development activities involving ground disturbance, the project applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following: At Dublin City of Dublin Page-7-18 | Biological Resources Draft EIR 11/9/18 Mitigate for Loss of Burrowing Owl Habitat The majority of project site, with the exception of delineated wetlands, developed areas, and areas with tree cover (73.64 acres), has been determined to potentially provide habitat or foraging areas for burrowing owl. Therefore, the applicant shall implement compensatory mitigation for loss of owl habitat in accordance with the standards set forth in the Required Mitigation Plan section below. Additional measures below will avoid direct impacts to individuals that may occupy the site during construction and implementation of the project. Conduct a Burrowing Owl Survey Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct two pre-construction surveys for the Western burrowing owl on the project site. The first survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to ground-disturbing activities and the second survey within 48 hours of initial ground disturbance. The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the surveys determine owls are present, then the measures set forth below shall be followed. Implement Avoidance Measures If direct impacts to owls can be avoided, prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall implement the following avoidance measures during all phases of construction to reduce or eliminate potential impacts to California burrowing owls. ▪ A pre-construction survey shall be performed prior to start of ground disturbance activities. This survey will occur regardless of the time of year, as burrowing owls may use the project site during the non-nesting season. The survey shall be performed according to the standards set forth by the Staff Report for Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012). ▪ The project site should be managed to prevent burrowing owl from occupying the site prior to any project activities ▪ All suitable burrows should be closed by hand once it has been determined that the burrow is unoccupied. ▪ Maintenance of the property to ensure burrows are not rebuilt will be necessary throughout the year to preclude the presence of burrowing owl and suitable burrowing owl habitat. Maintenance should occur approximately every 8 weeks, and burrows should be inspected prior to closure to ensure no burrowing owl are present. The frequency of burrow closure may be adjusted based upon ground squirrel and burrow reestablishment progress. City of Dublin At Dublin Biological Resources | Page 7-19 Draft EIR 11/9/18 ▪ The debris within the project site should be removed. ▪ If discing is chosen as a preferred method for burrow maintenance, it is recommended that any sensitive biological resources (populations of rare plants, wetland boundaries and any active bird nests, etc.) be flagged by a qualified biologist and avoided. Conduct Burrow Exclusion If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible, prior to the first ground- disturbing activities, the project applicant, in consultation with the CDFW, shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan as indicated and following the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Monitoring of the excluded owls shall be carried out as per the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2012 Staff Report. Prepare and Implement aRequired Mitigation Plan If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible and project activities may result in impacts to nesting, occupied, and satellite burrows and/or burrowing owl habitat, tThe project applicant shall consult with the CDFW and develop a detailed mitigation plan that shall include replacement of impacted habitat, number of burrows, and burrowing owl at a ratio approved by CDFW to ensure no net loss of species. The mitigation plan shall be based on comply with the requirements set forth in Appendix A of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and the plan shall be reviewed and accepted approved by CDFW and the City prior to the first ground-disturbing activities. MM BIO-1.3: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures Prior to obtaining the first site grading building or other permit for development activities from February 1 to August 31, the applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following: Pre-construction Breeding Bird Surveys No more than 14 days prior to initial ground disturbance and vegetation removal during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to perform pre-construction breeding bird surveys. If any nests are found, they shall be flagged and protected with a suitable buffer based on the species. Buffer distance may vary based on species and conditions, but is typically at least 50 feet, and up to 250 feet for raptors. As used in this measure, “suitable” means the distance a qualified biologist determines is necessary to ensure no disturbance to nesting. The buffer distance is measured as the straight-line distance between an active nest and the activity, taking both horizontal and vertical distance into account. This mitigation measure does not apply to ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities that occur outside of the nesting season (September 1 to January 31). At Dublin City of Dublin Page-7-22 | Biological Resources Draft EIR 11/9/18 project site does not support core, critical, or unique populations essential to recovery and long‐term survival of these species. Impact BIO-6: Contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on biological resources (Class II). As stated above, the project would not result in a net loss of riparian habitat and would not result in a loss of any heritage trees. The project would affect 0.66 acres of seasonal wetlands, which would considerably contribute to the significant cumulative biological impacts associated with past, present, and reasonably future projects. Implementation of MM BIO-3.1 would reduce the project’s contribution to less-than-cumulatively considerable. The proposed project would have potentially significant impacts related to the loss of potential habitat for special-status species, including The project’s impacts to Congdon’s tarplant, San Joaquin spearscale, Saline clover, Western Burrowing Owl, Loggerhead shrike, and White-tailed kite. would be reduced through adherence to Implementation of MM BIO-1.1,. MM BIO-1.2, and MM BIO-1.3. would reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. In addition, the revised MM BIO 1.3 would ensure mitigation for impacts to burrowing owl habitat, and would therefore reduce cumulative impacts to a less-than-significant level. Project-related biological impacts are considered and mitigated consistent with local, state and federal regulations, which includes compliance with mitigation for loss of burrowing owl habitat and wetlands. Although past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects may result in impacts to special-status plants and special-status wildlife, such impacts would be site-specific and could be mitigated through adherence to similar standard mitigation. The required mitigation would reduce the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative impact on wetlands and western burrowing owl habitat to less than cumulatively considerable. As such, cumulative impacts to special-species plants and wildlife species would be less than significant. 7.5.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation Table 7-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Biological Resources summarizes the environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures for the project with regard to biological resources. At Dublin Errata to the Final EIR January 16, 2020 Planning Application Number: PLPA-2017-00061 City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR | Page i 1/16/20 Table of Contents Introduction 1 Prior CEQA Analysis 1 At Dublin EIR 1 Findings 2 CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088.5(b) 2 Revised Project Description 4 Land Uses 4 Park Standards 6 Circulation and Access 6 Grading 8 Infrastructure 8 Project Phasing 9 Project Approvals 9 Environmental Analysis 10 Aesthetics 10 Air Quality 10 Biological Resources 11 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources 12 Geology and Soils 12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 13 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 13 Hydrology and Water Quality 14 Land Use and Planning 15 Noise 15 Population and Housing 16 Public Services 17 Transportation/Traffic 17 Utilities and Service Systems 26 Energy Conservation 27 City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR | Page ii 1/16/20 List of Figures Figure 1: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations Figure 2: Conceptual Site Plan Figure 3: Phasing Plan Figure 4: Project Renderings (a-e) Note: All figures are included at the end of the document. List of Tables Table 1: At Dublin – Revised Project Land Use Summary 4 Table 2: New Project Weekday Trip Generation 20 Table 3: New Project Saturday Trip Generation 21 Table 4: Weekday Trip Generation Comparison 2018 vs 2019 21 Table 5: Existing Plus Project Weekday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 22 Table 6: Existing Plus Project Saturday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 22 Table 7: Near-term (2025) Plus Project Weekday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 23 Table 8: Near-term (2025) Plus Project Saturday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 24 Table 9: Long-term (2040) Plus Project Weekday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 25 Table 10: Long-term (2040) Plus Project Saturday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 25 City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR | Page 1 1/16/20 At Dublin Errata to the Final EIR Introduction This Errata documents changes to the At Dublin Final EIR (the Final EIR) based on proposed changes to the project. It analyzes changes from the previous At Dublin project (the previous project) analyzed in the Final EIR to the revised At Dublin project (the revised project) in context of CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 (b) and concludes that none of the conditions in Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines are met, and recirculation is not required. Because the revised project represents a lower intensity of use as compared the previous project, this Errata concludes that there are no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the revised project would require major revisions of the previous environmental analysis due to the involvement of new significant environmenta l effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. In addition, the EIR has not been changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement. Furthermore, the revised project would be subject to all applicable adopted mitigation measures from the prior Final EIR. This Errata summarizes each environmental resource, documenting the characteristics of the revised project, the CEQA analysis for the previous project, and conclusions as to why no standards for recirculation are met for the revised project. Prior CEQA Analysis At Dublin EIR On October 3, 2017, the Dublin City Council approved the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to evaluate changing the land use designation of the project site. On October 13, 2017, the City received an application for the previous project. As part of the City’s review of the previous project, staff analyzed the impacts from the land use change; completed a fiscal impact analysis of the proposed land use changes; conducted environmental review and prepared an environmental impact report; and prepared an analysis of the previous project for consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) was released on July 6, 2018, for a 45-public review period, which ended on August 20, 2018. The Final EIR, which includes responses to comments received on the Draft EIR, was released on October 24, 2018. City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR | Page 2 1/16/20 On October 30, 2018, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to review the previous project and made a recommendation to City Council to deny the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments and the entirety of the previous project. On November 20, 2018, following a request from the project applicant (the applicant), the City Council continued the public hearing to an undetermined future date. Since the November 20, 2018 meeting, the applicant has considered various land plan revisions to the project site. The City Council held a Study Session on June 4, 2019 and received a presentation from the applicant regarding the potential project revisions. No action was t aken nor were any approvals granted at this meeting. In October 2019, the applicant submitted revised project materials in response to public comments received. The revised project results in a reconfiguration of land uses and a reduction of 114 residential units and a reduction of 214,500 square feet of commercial uses. Findings CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088.5(b) This Errata documents whether there are any changes to the environmental impact analysis in the Final EIR due to the revised project’s changes to the previous project. As discussed below, these project modifications would not result in new or substantially severe significant impacts and does not warrant recirculation of the EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires that an EIR that has been made available for public review, but not yet certified, be recirculated only if significant new information has been added to the EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5(b), recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications to an adequate EIR. The relevant portions of CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 read as follows: (a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term “information ” can include changes in the revised project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the revised project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the revised project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Signif icant new information” requiring recirculation include, for example, a disclosure showing that: (1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the revised project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR | Page 3 1/16/20 Finding: There are no substantial changes to the revised project as compared to those analyzed in the At Dublin Final EIR. The revised project land uses on the project site are similar to the previous project, will not result in any additional significant impacts, and no additional or different mitigation measures are proposed. (2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. Finding: There are no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified in the At Dublin Final EIR. No new mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts of the revised project. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the revised project, but the revised project’s proponents decline to adopt it. Finding: There are no changes as compared to those assumed in the At Dublin Final EIR project alternatives or mitigation measures that would lessen the environmental impacts that have been rejected by the previous project applicant. No new mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts of the revised project. (4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. Finding: The Draft EIR adequately addressed project impacts and provided a meaningful opportunity for public comments as evidenced by the comment letters submitted by responsible agencies and the public. Response to those comments were included in the Final EIR. (b) Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. The information contained in this Errata merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant changes to the information that has already been presented in the EIR. In addition, the modifications to the EIR are not significant because the EIR is not changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the revised project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement. Based on the above, the clarification to the EIR would not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any impact already identified in the EIR. In addition, this Errata to the Final EIR merely clarifies, amplifies or makes insignificant refinements to the information that has already been presented in the Final EIR. Thus, none of the conditions in Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines are met and recirculation is not required. City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR | Page 4 1/16/20 Revised Project Description The applicant has submitted an application for a revised project which would reduce the number of residential units to 566 consisting of 326 for-sale single-family homes and duplexes and 240 multi-family apartment homes. The revised project distributes a lower density residential product across the property north of Dublin Boulevard and concentrating the mixed‐ use/commercial south of Dublin Boulevard. The mixed‐use would allow up to 240,000 square feet of non‐residential uses and up to 240 residential units. Additionally, the revised project proposes Planning Area 2 as an age restricted residential community. As shown in Table 1: At Dublin – Revised Project Land Use Summary, the revised project proposes a reduction of residential units from 680 units to 566 units, 114 less units as compared to the previous project. Commercial square footage would be reduced from 454,500 square feet to 240,000 square feet; a reduction of 214,500 square feet as compared to the previous project. Table 1: At Dublin – Revised Project Land Use Summary Land Use Designations Gross acres1 Residential Units Du/Acre Floor Area Ration (FAR) Commercial square feet (sf) Mixed-Use 23.7 240 -- 0.44 240,0003 Medium Density Residential (55 and older, Age Restricted) 29.4 196 6.7 NA -- Single Family Residential 23.8 130 5.5 NA -- Revised Project Total 76.9 566 5.5 to 6.7 0.44 240,000 Proposed Project2 76.9 680 7.6 to 14.3 0.4 to 0.7 454,500 Difference 0 (114) -- -- (214,500) 1. Gross residential acreage shall be determined by calculating the area of the site and by adding one-half of the area of abutting streets, provided that that street width used for calculation shall not be less than 25 feet or more than 50 feet. Public or private streets within the boundaries of the site, as well as streets abutting the site, shall be calculated within the gross acreage total. Gross acreage includes gross area of PA 1 and Northside Drive (1.6 acre) to be vacated and included in PA 1 project area. 2. Proposed project as defined in the At Dublin Final EIR, 2018, Table 3-2. 3. The 240,000 square feet of commercial includes 75,000 square feet of hotel (155 rooms) and 40,000 square feet of medical office. The proposed 40,000 square feet of medical office building was assumed to be retail as a worst-case scenario. Land Uses As shown in Figure 1: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations, the applicant proposes to redistribute and simplify the six existing General Plan land use designations to three, organized into four Planning Areas (PAs). The proposed new General Plan land use designations, from the south to the north, are: Mixed-Use; Medium Density Residential and Single‐Family Residential. These land uses are described below and illustrated conceptually in Figure 2: Conceptual Site Plan. City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR | Page 5 1/16/20 Mixed Use (PA-1) Mixed-Use is proposed for approximately 23.7 gross acres in the southern portion of the project site, comprised of PA-1, south of Dublin Boulevard. The Mixed‐Use designation provides for the combination of multi-family residential housing and commercial uses with an allowable FAR of 0.30 to 1.0. The total amount of commercial uses in PA‐1 is 240,000 square feet and would include a theater, specialty restaurants, miscellaneous general retail uses, a hotel with up to 155 keys, and a 40,000-square-foot medical office building. PA-1 would include approximately 1.05 acres of associated plaza areas. Each plaza would have its own character, incorporating unique elements in the furniture, planting and lighting. A central plaza would be designed to accommodate community programs, such as farmers markets, featured musicians, and holiday events. All plazas would be publicly accessible and privately owned and maintained by a commercial association. PA-1 would include a five and a half‐story 215,000-square-foot apartment building with up to 240 units surrounding a five‐story parking garage. The apartments would have approximately 4,000 square feet of ground floor retail and would also include several amenities for the tenants such as a club room, gym, outdoor courtyards, barbeque areas and pool and spa. The apartments would accommodate private courtyards/amenities that would serve the apartment tenants. The apartments would include both passive and active open spaces. The total common useable outdoor space would be approximately 0.47 acres, which would account for 20 percent of the net PA-1 site area. These areas would be owned and maintained by the apartment owner. Medium Density Residential (PA-2) Medium density residential is proposed on approximately 29.4 acres in PA‐2, between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway. The density would range from 6.1 to 14.0 units per gross acre. The revised project consists of196 new age‐qualified homes, comprised of 109 single-family and 87 duet‐style dwellings at a density of 6.7 units per gross acre. Within PA‐2, the revised project would include an approximately 1.7 acres privately‐owned open space and buffers. This would include an approximately 1.07-acre private park/open space in the center that would include a clubhouse and various indoor and outdoor recreational amenities. These open space areas would be owned and maintained by the homeowners’ association. It is anticipated that pedestrian and vehicular access to PA-2 would be via a controlled gate. City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR | Page 6 1/16/20 Single-Family Residential (PA-3 and PA-4) Single‐family residential is proposed on approximately 23.8 gross acres on the northerly portion of the project site within PA‐3 and PA‐4, between Central Parkway to the north side of Gleason Drive. The land use designation allows for a density would range from 0.9 to 6.0 units per gross acre. The revised project includes a total of 130 single‐family detached units at density of 5.5 units for gross acre. These units would not be age-qualified. PA‐3 and PA‐4 would include an approximately 1.81 acres of parks and open space buffers. Walls would be interior to the open space buffers to enhance the open space features and connectivity to the community. These open space areas would be owned and maintained by their respective homeowners’ association. Park Standards Based on City standards, the revised project would be required to provide 3.54 acres of public Community Parks and 1.82 acres of public Neighborhood Parks, for a total of 5.36 acres. While not credited to the revised project’s public open space requirement, approximately 7.69 acres of privately‐owned open spaces would be included as part of the revised project as either parks, plazas, courtyards or buffers. These open space areas, together with the public open space areas would connect the project site to surrounding neighborhoods and Emerald Glen Park to the west. Circulation and Access The revised project would contain several ingress/egress access points from public roadways. Private streets would be incorporated to allow for access to the interior residential, commercial and mixed‐use developments. Due to the lower traffic volumes and limited vehicular access, private streets may be designed with a narrower profile and where the blocks are short and would have low traffic volumes, may not include featu res typically associated with public streets including sidewalks and on‐street parking. All internal streets and roadways would be privately owned and maintained by the respective owner association. The revised project proposes the following changes to the adjacent off-site roadways: ▪ Tassajara Road – add an exclusive northbound right turn lane into the project driveway to PA-1 located between Dublin Boulevard and WB I-580 ramps. ▪ Intersection of Dublin Boulevard and new traffic signal between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street: o Would be a three-legged intersection by removing the north leg into PA-2. o Would subsequently remove the eastbound left turn lane at this intersection . o No crosswalk on the west leg of this intersection is proposed. o Would add an exclusive eastbound right turn lane into PA-1. City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR | Page 7 1/16/20 ▪ Intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Brannigan Street : o Only one eastbound left turn lane needed. o Southbound approach can be a left turn lane and a shared through -right turn lane, as opposed to a southbound left turn lane, through lane, and right turn lane. To accommodate the modified land uses, the revised project would modify ingress and egress to the four planning areas as follows: ▪ PA-1 o Two driveways along Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard, whereas the previous project proposed three driveways. ▪ PA-2 o Access on Dublin Boulevard would be removed. o The previously proposed unsignalized driveway along Tassajara Road between The Shops and Dublin Boulevard would be removed . o The two previously proposed driveways on Central Parkway would be removed. ▪ PA-3 o The one access on Central Parkway would remain but be relocated towards the center of PA-3. This would provide additional space away from Brannigan Street . ▪ PA-4 o Access remains the same. Bicycles and Pedestrians The public roadways surrounding the project site would be as described in the previous project and completed in accordance with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, including the incorporation of Class II bike lanes along Dublin Boulevard and westbound on Central Parkway. Public Transit The revised project retains the same public transit improvements as described in the previou s project. Bus stops suitable for use by Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LA VTA) would be constructed on the revised project frontage streets of Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive, Central Parkway and Dublin Boulevard. City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR | Page 8 1/16/20 Grading The revised project would be substantially consistent with the assumptions and grading approach of the previous project. The revised project would require an estimated net import of approximately 111,200 cubic yards of soil. Excess fill would be utilized on‐site to minimize the import of soils. PA‐1 would have the majority of imported soils, PA‐2 and PA-4 would generate some soils export, and PA‐3 would require some minor import of soils. The imported soils would originate from available borrow sites, preferably within the Tri‐Valley area. Infrastructure Water The revised project would connect to the existing underground potable and non‐potable recycled Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) water lines in a manner similar to the previous project. The project site is located within the boundaries of the DSRSD, which serves the City of Dublin with potable water and non‐potable recycled water. The revised project would connect to existing underground potable and non‐potable recycled DSRSD water lines located within the right‐of‐way of the adjacent roadways. Multiple connections would be provided for the purposes of achieving a “looped system.” Potable water would be used for domestic use, while non‐potable recycled/reclaimed water would be used primarily for landscape irrigation. Wastewater The revised project would connect to the existing underground sewer lines in a manner similar to the previous project. The project site is located within the boundaries of DSRSD, which serves the City of Dublin with potable water. The previous project assumed connection to existing underground DSRSD sewer lines located within the right‐of‐way of the adjacent roadways. Multiple laterals would connect the revised project to the existing sewer system. Stormwater Management Stormwater management for the project site would be substantially similar to the previous project. The previous project assumed an on‐site storm drainage system that would collect and convey runoff and ultimately discharge it to the City of Dublin’s municipal storm drainage system. Drainage for the revised project was designed to maintain the existing drainage patterns to the extent feasible. This would be done by reducing the post development runoff to the predevelopment condition, consistent with Municipal Regional Permit requirements as defined by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR | Page 9 1/16/20 Dry Utilities The revised project assumes these same services and improvements as compared to the previous project. Pacific Gas and Electric Company would serve the project site with electricity and natural gas. Additionally, portions of buildings in the revised project would include the use of solar power/photovoltaics. Similar to the previous project, the revised project would incorporate electric vehicle (EV) charging stations for the commercial area and the apartments. Project Phasing Project construction activities would include site preparation, grading, paving, building construction, and architectural coating. As shown Figure 3: Project Phasing, the revised project is anticipated to be completed in two phases over a construction period of approximately four years, although it may be developed over a longer period of time depending on market conditions. The first phase would include the northern portion of PA‐1 and all of PA-2. Phase 2 includes the southern portion of PA‐1, and PA3 and PA‐4. Project Approvals Discretionary approvals and permits and authorizations required by the City of Dublin for implementation of the revised project includes the following: ▪ EIR Certification ▪ General Plan Amendment ▪ Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment ▪ Planned Development Rezone (Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans) ▪ Site Development Review ▪ Vesting Tentative Map ▪ Street Vacation (Northside Drive) ▪ Development Agreement ▪ Master Sign Program/Site Development Review Subsequent ministerial actions would be required for the implementation of the revised project including issuance of building permits, grading, encroachment and site improvements. City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR | Page 10 1/16/20 Environmental Analysis The discussion below analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the revised project per the criteria as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Based on this analysis, the City has determined that no event has occurred that requires recirculation of the Final EIR. Aesthetics The Final EIR concluded that impacts to a scenic vista, state scenic highway, and visual character would be less than significant. Impacts from new light and glare were determined to be potentially significant because implementation of the previous project would include additional sources of commercial and residential indoor lighting, outdoor/security lighting, parking area lighting, and illuminated signage to a presently vacant site. These impacts were reduced to a less-than-significant level by implementation of MM AES-4.1: Exterior Lighting Control. The revised project would contain similar land uses to the previous project. The revised would project shift the buildings with the largest mass (movie theater and apartment building) from PA-2 to PA-1 where similarly large-scale buildings were anticipated in the previous project. The urban form would generally be the same but at a lower density. As shown in Figure 4: Project Renderings, impacts to visual character would be consistent with existing uses and development patterns in the project area. Similarly, while a reduced density, the revised project would still require exterior lighting that would generally be similar to the previous project. Mitigation measures in the Final EIR would continue to apply. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe aesthetic significant impacts for the revised project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no other CEQA standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required. Air Quality The Final EIR found that development of the project site would potentially conflict with the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Construction and operational air quality emissions generated by the previous project were determined to exceed Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) emissions thresholds despite implementation of mitigation measures. To reduce impacts to air quality emissions to less than significant, the previous project identified the following mitigation measures: MM AQ-2.1: BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction Equipment, MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating, and MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces. The Final EIR found no impacts to objectionable odors because BAAQMD enforces permit and nuisance rules to control odorous emissions from stationary sources. City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR | Page 11 1/16/20 The revised project is anticipated to be completed in two phases over a construction period of approximately four years. The previous project had anticipated construction to be completed in two phases over five years. Similar to the previous project, the resulting total cut and fill of soils for the revised project is estimated to be approximately 111,200 cubic yards. Although the revised project proposes a reduction in residential units and commercial square footage, similar construction equipment and number of trips would still be required for the construction. Daily construction emissions would still remain below their respective thresholds except for ROG and NOX due to fact that construction activities in multiple Planning Areas would occur, similar to previously proposed . Mitigation measures in the Final EIR would continue to apply including MM AQ-2.1: BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction Equipment, MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating, and MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces. With adherence to these mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to air quality for the revised project beyond what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no other CEQA standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required. Biological Resources The Final EIR determined that development of the project site would have the potential to impact special-status plant species, special-status wildlife species, nesting birds and wetlands. These impacts were reduced to a less-than-significant level by implementation of MM BIO-1.1: Special-Status Plants Avoidance and Mitigation, MM BIO-1.2: Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Exclusion Measures, MM BIO-1.3: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures, and MM BIO- 3.1 Wetland Mitigation Plan. The Final EIR determined that impacts to natural communities or riparian habitats, wildlife movement, and tree preservation to be less than significant. Because the revised project would disturb the entire project site, similar to the previous project, there would not be any greater impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species than previously analyzed in the Final EIR. Mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR would continue to apply. With adherence to these required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species for the revised project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no other CEQA standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required. City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR | Page 12 1/16/20 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources The Final EIR determined that development of the project site would have no impact to known historical or archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources. The Final EIR determined that development of the project site would have the potential to impact previously unknown historic and paleontological resources. These impacts were reduced to a less-than-significant level by implementation of MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological Discovery During Construction, and MM CR-2.1: Paleontological Resource Monitoring. Impacts to the inadvertent discovery of human remains were found to be less than significant with the implementation of existing regulations. Because the revised project would be located within the same project site as the previous project, there would be no greater impacts to cultural resources than previously analyzed. Mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR would continue to apply. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to cultural resources for the revised project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no other CEQA standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required. Geology and Soils The Final EIR determined that the project site would have no impact in regards to earthquake- related ground rupture, landslide susceptibility, on -site wastewater disposal system, and extraction of mineral resources. The Final EIR determined that development of the project site would have the potential to be exposed to strong ground shaking hazards, ground failure, including liquefaction. These impacts were reduced to a less-than-significant level by implementation of MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary Geotechnical Report Recommendations and compliance with the most current California Building Code (CBC ) and General Plan policies. The revised project would still be required to implement the geotechnical recommendations and be compliant with the most current CBC requirements as described in the Final EIR. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to seismic hazards for the revised project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no other CEQA standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required. City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR | Page 13 1/16/20 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Final EIR determined that the previous project would include direct and indirect GHG emissions. Direct operational-related GHG emissions include emissions from area and mobile sources, while indirect emissions are from energy consumption, water demand, and solid waste. Impacts were determined to be less than significant. As determined in the Final EIR, the previous project was determined to be consistent with the overall goals of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Plan Bay Area 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy in concentrating new development in locations where there is existing infrastructure. The previous project’s design features were determined to be consistent with the GHG reduction planning efforts and housin g performance targets outlined in Plan Bay Area 2040 and the City’s Climate Action Plan. The revised project would be substantially consistent with these design features. The revised project would be completed in two phases over a construction period of approximately four years, one year less than previously proposed. The previous project would utilize an average of 125 workers a year and would generate approximately 458 daily trips, based on 3.05 daily trips per worker, with a 20 percent increase to account for material deliveries, and other trips not directly related to site workers. The revised project would be substantially consistent with these assumptions. The revised project would result in less indirect emissions than previously analyzed because there would be a reduced demand from energy consumption, water demand, and solid waste due to the reduction in the number of housing units and less commercial square footage . The revised project would result in less direct operational-related GHG emissions than previously analyzed because there would be less residential units, thus resulting in less net project trips. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to GHG emissions for the revised project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no other CEQA standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Final EIR determined that the previous project would have no impact in regard to emitting hazardous emissions within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, conflict with an emergency response plan, or be located on a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. It also determined that the previous project would have the potential to result in the exposure of hazardous materials into the environment due to ground disturbance. These impacts were reduced to a less-than-significant level by implementation of MM HAZ-1.1 Disposal of Deleterious Materials. This mitigation measure would continue to apply. City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR | Page 14 1/16/20 In regard to the previous project activities involving the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials, impacts were found to be less than significant due to compliance with regulatory requirements. The revised project would involve the same types of land uses. Future commercial uses would use, handle and store hazardous materials and waste that would be regulated by the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health and provide applicable documentation demonstrating operational compliance. For the residential portion of the revised project, there would still be a less than significant impact to the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials since residential development does not use, store or transport significant quantities of hazardous materials. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts for the revised project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no other CEQA standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required. Hydrology and Water Quality The Final EIR determined that the previous project would not be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow based on the location of the project site. The revised project is located on the same project site and, therefore, would also not be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. The Final EIR identified development by the previous project would not result in an increase in stormwater runoff due to an increase in impervious surfaces and therefore impacts were determined to be less than significant. Impacts to water quality were determined to be less than significant because the previous project would be required to meet the water quality requirements required by the Construction General Permit and MRP Provision C.3 Requirements. Impacts to placement of structures within a 100-year flood hazard area were determined to be less than significant because structures within PA-1 would be elevated above the 100-year flood elevation level. In addition, as part of the design process, the revised project applicant would seek a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from FEMA. The raised elevations within PA-1 and the associated CLOMR and LOMR process would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. The revised project would be subject to these same requirements. The previous project assumed on‐site storm drainage system would be installed to collect and convey runoff and ultimately discharge to the City of Dublin’s municipal storm drainage system. Similar to the previous project, drainage on the project site has been designed in the revised project to maintain the existing watershed drainage pattern to the extent feasible. This would be done by reducing the post development runoff for PA-1 and PA-4 to the predevelopment condition prior to discharge into the City of Dublin’s municipal storm drainage system, City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR | Page 15 1/16/20 consistent with Municipal Regional Permit requirements as defined by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and in a manner similar to that proposed by the previous project. Runoff from PA-2 and PA-3 would be conveyed by the municipal storm drainage system to the existing downstream water quality/detention pond constructed as part of the Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan improvements, also in a manner similar to that proposed by the previous project. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to hydrology and water quality for the revised project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no other CEQA standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required. Land Use and Planning The Final EIR concluded that development of the previous project would not physically divide an established community, nor would it conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. The previous project included a General Plan Amendment that would re-designate the project site from six to four land use designations. The Final EIR determined that the previous project would not conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation. As shown in Figure 1: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations, the revised project would redistribute and simplify the six existing General Plan land use desig nations to three land uses, organized into four PAs. The revised project would reduce the number of residential units by 114 units and proposes lower density product types. The revised project would locate commercial uses south of Dublin Boulevard to consolidate vehicle trips and pedestrian circulation. Commercial uses would be reduced by 214,500 square feet compared to the previous project. See Table 1: At Dublin – Revised Project Land Use Summary. Given the revised project would reduce the number of residential uses and lower the intensity of uses, impacts to land uses would be less than previously analyzed. With City Council approval of the revised project and certification of the EIR, the revised project would be consistent with applicable land use plan, policy, and regulations. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to environmental protection policies in the General Plan for the revised project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no other CEQA standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required. Noise The Final EIR found worst-case construction noise levels at the closest off-site sensitive receptors for the previous project could potentially reach 72.8 dBA Leq. Worst-case construction noise levels at the closest occupied on-site receptors could potentially reach 79.7 City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR | Page 16 1/16/20 dBA. These impacts were reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of MM N-1.1: Construction Noise Reduction. The Final EIR determined development from the previous project would create new sources of noise in the project vicinity. The increase of noise level from traffic noise, mechanical equipment, and parking areas were found not to be significant. The increase in noise from slow moving trucks and on-site mobile sources were found to be potentially significant. These impacts were reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of MM N-3.1: Noise Attenuation. Impacts to groundborne vibration during construction and operation activities from the previous project were found to be below the significance threshold of 0.20 inch/second peak particle velocity. Implementation of the construction noise best management practices would ensure that construction noise would not result in annoyance or disturbance or injury or endangerment of the health, repose, peace or safety of any rea sonable person of normal sensitivity residing in the revised project vicinity. The revised project is anticipated to be completed in two phases over a construction period of approximately four years. Although the revised project proposes a reduction in residential units and a reduction in commercial square footage, similar construction equipment and number of construction trips would be required. Thus, impacts in regard to noise and groundborne vibration from construction and operation activities would be similar. Mitigation measures described in the Final EIR would continue to apply. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to noise for the revised project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no other CEQA standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required. Population and Housing The Final EIR determined development of the project site would not displace existing housing or people because the project site is undeveloped. The Final EIR identified population growth from the previous project would be less than significant. While the previous project would increase the population projections for the City, the previous project still represents a small fraction of the planned buildout for t he Eastern Dublin Specific Plan overall. In addition, the previous project would be consistent with the nature of surrounding development and would be within the estimate of population growth estimated by Department of Finance and the City’s Housing Element. City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR | Page 17 1/16/20 Because the revised project is located within the same project site and proposes a reduction of residential units, impacts to population growth would be less than previously analyzed in the Final EIR. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to population growth and housing for the revised project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no other CEQA standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required. Public Services The Final EIR determined that impacts to fire protection and emergency medical services, police services, schools, and recreation facilities to be less than significant. The revised project would utilize the same services and improvements as the previous project. Given the revised project proposes a reduction of residential units and a reduction in commercial square footage, there would be less demand on these public facilities and services than previously analyzed in the Final EIR. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to public services for the revised project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no other CEQA standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required. Transportation/Traffic The Final EIR determined that the previous project would have significant impacts in regard to transportation and circulation. Some of these impacts were reduced to a less than significant level by implementation of the following mitigation measures: ▪ MM TR-1.1 Prohibited Turn Movement Design Features for the New Project Intersection on Dublin Boulevard ▪ MM TR-3.1 Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway ▪ MM TR-3.2 Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway ▪ MM TR-3.3 Existing + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard ▪ MM TR-3.5 Existing + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / The Shops / Project Driveway ▪ MM TR-6.2 Near-term + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street ▪ MM TR-6.3 Near-term + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / The Shops / Project Driveway ▪ MM TR-8.1 Cumulative + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard ▪ MM TR-8.2 Cumulative + Project Improvements to Brannigan Street / Dublin Boulevard ▪ MM TR-8.3 Cumulative + Project Improvements to Fallon Road / Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR | Page 18 1/16/20 ▪ MM TR-8.4 Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Keegan Street ▪ MM TR-8.5 Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Lockhart Street ▪ MM TR-9.1 Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Grafton Street However, even with the implementation of the following mitigation measures, some impacts would remain significant and unavoidable as follows: ▪ Impact TR-2: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Existing + Project condition that exceed established LOS standards (Class I). o MM TR-2.1 Existing + Project Improvements to El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard (LTS) o MM TR-2.2 Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program ▪ Impact TR-3: Cause intersection queues to operate below acceptable levels under Existing + Project conditions (Class I). o MM TR-3.4 Existing + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps ▪ Impact TR-4: Increase vehicle densities along study freeway segments and ramps in the Existing + Project condition that exceed established LOS standards (Class I). o MM TR-4.1 Existing + Project Freeway Segment Improvements o MM TR-4.2 Existing + Project Ramp Metering Improvements ▪ Impact TR-5: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Near-Term + Project condition that exceed established LOS standards (Class I and II). o MM TR-5.1 Near-Term + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard ▪ Impact TR-6: Cause intersection queues to operate below acceptable levels under Near- Term + Project conditions (Class I and II). o MM TR-6.1 Near-Term + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard ▪ Impact TR-7: Increase vehicle densities along study freeway segments and ramps in the Near-Term + Project conditions that exceed established LOS standards (Class I Impact). o MM TR-7.1 Near-Term + Project Ramp Metering Improvements ▪ Impact TR-8: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Cumulative + Project conditions that exceed established LOS standards (Class I and II). o MM TR-8.6 Cumulative + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard Trip Generation For trip generation purposes, the revised project was assumed to include the land uses and sizes as shown in Table 2: New Project Weekday Trip Generation. The 240,000 square feet of commercial uses from Table 1: At Dublin – Revised Project Land Use Summary is divided into City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR | Page 19 1/16/20 75,000 square feet of hotel and 165,000 square feet of retail/mixed-use since each land use has its own trip generation rate. The 40,000-square -foot medical office building could still be used as a retail use and, therefore, is included within the remaining 165,000 square feet of retail/mixed-use since it has a higher trip generation rate than a medical office building. This would result in a higher number of vehicle trips and a more conservative analysis. The revised project would result in less vehicle trips as compared to the previous project. As shown in Table 2: New Project Weekday Trip Generation, the revised project would generate 12,109 net new daily trips, with 565 net new trips (252 in and 313 out) occurring during the AM peak hour and 1,039 net new trips (547 in and 492 out) occurring during the PM peak hour. As shown in Table 3: New Project Saturday Trip Generation, the revised project would generate 15,638 net new Saturday daily trips, with 1,263 net new trips (671 in and 592 out) occurring during the peak hour. Table 4: Weekday Trip Generation Comparison 2018 vs 2019 shows a trip generation comparison between the previous project and the revised project; including the difference in project trips for the uses north and south of Dublin Boulevard. The revised project is estimated to generate 183 fewer AM peak hour trips, 506 fewer PM peak hour trips, and 568 fewer Saturday peak hour trips. However, the revised project is estimated to generate 90 more AM and 59 more Saturday peak hour trips for PA-1, south of Dublin Boulevard. This is due to the added residential units, which have a higher trip generation than retail uses, which have been reduced for PA-1, as compared to the previous project. City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR | Page 20 1/16/20 Table 2: New Project Weekday Trip Generation Land Use ITE Land Use Code Size Unit Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total In Out Total Revised Project Residential Single-Family Detached 1 210 130 DU 1,364 26 76 102 83 49 132 Residential Apartments 2 220 240 DU 1,774 25 85 110 81 48 129 Senior Housing Detached 3 251 109 DU 606 15 29 44 31 20 51 Senior Housing Attached 4 252 87 DU 324 6 11 17 13 10 23 Hotel 5 310 155 Rooms 1,322 42 30 72 46 44 90 Mixed-Use 6 820 165 1,000 sf. 8,452 145 89 234 378 409 787 Internal Capture Trip Reduction (Day: 3.7%, AM: 2.4%, PM: 5%) 7 -512 -7 -7 -14 -30 -30 -60 Pass-By Retail Only Trip Reduction (PM: 15% after IC) -1,221 -55 -58 -113 Net New Project Trips 12,109 252 313 565 547 492 1,039 Notes: 1. ITE Code 210; Based on ITE equation. AM: Y=0.71*X+4.8; PM: LN(Y)=0.96*LN(X)+0.2; DAILY: LN(Y)=0.92*LN(X)+2.71 2. ITE Code 220; Based on ITE equation. AM: LN(Y)=0.95*LN(X)-0.51; PM: LN(Y)=0.89*LN(X)-0.2; DAILY: Y=7.56*X-40.86 3. ITE Code 251; Based on ITE equation. AM: LN(Y)=0.76*LN(X)+0.21; PM: LN(Y)=0.78*LN(X)+0.28; DAILY: LN(Y)=0.88*LN(X)+2.28 4. ITE Code 252; Based on ITE equation. AM: Y=0.2*X-0.18; PM: Y=0.24*X+2.26; DAILY: Y=4.02*X-25.37 5. ITE Code 310; Based on ITE equation. AM: Y=0.5*X-5.34; PM: Y=0.75*X-26.02; DAILY: Y=11.29*X-426.97 6. ITE Code 820; Based on ITE equation. AM: Y=0.5*X+151.78; PM: LN(Y)=0.74*LN(X)+2.89; DAILY: LN(Y)=0.68*LN(X)+5.57 7. Weekday daily internal capture is not available from ITE. AM and PM peak internal capture rates averaged to estimate the daily internal capture rate. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 10th Edition, 2017; Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2018 City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR | Page 21 1/16/20 Table 3: New Project Saturday Trip Generation Land Use ITE Land Use Code Size Unit Daily Saturday Peak Hour Trips In Out Total Proposed Project Residential Single-Family Detached 1 210 130 DU 1,284 79 67 146 Residential Apartments 2 220 240 DU 2,840 122 104 226 Senior Housing Detached 3 251 109 DU 298 12 13 25 Senior Housing Attached 4 252 87 DU 286 18 11 29 Hotel 5 310 155 Rooms 1,196 62 49 111 Mixed-Use 6 820 165 1,000 sf. 12,158 478 441 919 Internal Capture Trip Reduction (Day: 5%, SAT: 5%) 7 -668 -30 -30 -60 Pass-By Retail Only Trip Reduction (15% after IC) -1,756 -70 -63 -133 Net New Project Trips 15,638 671 592 1,263 Notes: 1. ITE Code 210; Based on ITE equation. SAT Peak: Y=0.84*X+17.99; DAILY: LN(Y)=0.94*LN(X)+2.56 2. ITE Code 220; Based on ITE equation. SAT Peak: Y=1.08*X-33.24; DAILY: Y=14.01*X-521.69 3. ITE Code 251; Based on average rate. SAT Peak: Y=0.23*X; DAILY: Y=2.73*X 4. ITE Code 252; Based on ITE equation. SAT Peak: Y=0.35*X-1.67; DAILY: Y=3.97*X-60.09 5. ITE Code 310; Based on ITE equation. SAT Peak: Y=0.69*X+4.32; DAILY: Y=9.62*X-294.56 6. ITE Code 820; Based on ITE equation. SAT Peak: LN(Y)=0.79*LN(X)+2.79; DAILY: LN(Y)=0.62*LN(X)+6.24 7. Saturday daily internal capture is not available from ITE. Saturday peak internal capture rate estimate used for the Saturday daily internal capture rate. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 10th Edition, 2017; Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2018 Table 4: Weekday Trip Generation Comparison 2018 vs 2019 Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour SAT Peak In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total North of Dublin Boulevard Previous Project (2018) 132 303 435 398 295 693 434 377 811 Revised Project (2019) 47 115 162 116 74 190 98 86 184 Difference -85 -188 -273 -282 -221 -503 -336 -291 -627 South of Dublin Boulevard Previous Project (2018) 193 120 313 411 441 852 542 478 1,020 Revised Project (2019) 205 198 403 431 418 849 573 506 1,079 Difference +12 +78 +90 +20 -23 -3 +31 +28 +59 Project Total Previous Project (2018) 325 423 748 809 736 1545 976 855 1,831 Revised Project (2019) 252 313 565 547 492 1039 671 592 1,263 Difference -73 -110 -183 -262 -244 -506 -305 -263 -568 Note: Increases in project trips with the revised project are shown in blue. City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR | Page 22 1/16/20 Level of Service and Queuing Analysis The overall trip generation for the revised project is estimated to be less than the previous project trip generation. Therefore, the revised project would generate fewer project trips in the study area than previously analyzed in the Final EIR. However, there is a shift in the land uses within the Planning Areas. As shown in Table 4: Weekday Trip Generation Comparison 2018 vs 2019, south of Dublin Boulevard is estimated to have an increase in vehicle trips in the weekday AM peak hour and the Saturday peak hour. Therefore, additional traffic analysis was conducted at the study intersections adjacent to the project site (e.g., Brannigan Street, Dublin Boulevard, and Tassajara Road) that may have a significant impact due to the shift in land uses between the Project Planning Areas. The Existing Plus Project, Near-term (2025) Plus Project, and Long- term (2040) Plus Project scenarios were reevaluated at study intersections adjacent to the project site along Brannigan Street, Dublin Boulevard, and Tassajara Road. Existing Plus Project The intersection level of service (LOS) and queuing were compared between the previous Existing Plus Project scenario and the revised Existing Plus Project scenario. As shown in Table 5: Existing Plus Project Weekday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 and Table 6: Existing Plus Project Saturday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019, each study intersection operates acceptably in the Existing plus Project scenario and the majority of the intersections have a lo wer delay as compared to the previous project. Table 5: Existing Plus Project Weekday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 Table 6: Existing Plus Project Saturday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 Traffic queuing and turning movements at each study intersection were also analyzed for the Existing Plus Project scenario. Queue lengths for the revised project would be less than LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Δ LOS Delay Δ 12 Tassajara Rd / Central Pkwy D C 22.5 B 17.4 C 22.3 -0.2 B 17.7 0.3 13 Tassajara Rd / The Shops D B 13.1 B 17.4 B 10.1 -3.0 B 15.9 -1.5 14 Tassajara Rd / Dublin Blvd D D 39.0 D 47.0 D 38.5 -0.5 D 43.5 -3.5 15 Tassajara Rd / Dublin Corporate Way D A 7.0 C 21.9 A 7.0 0.0 C 22.2 0.3 21 Central Expy / Brannigan St D C 28.4 B 18.0 C 27.8 -0.6 B 17.4 -0.6 22 Finnian Way / Brannigan St D A 8.2 A 9.3 A 8.1 -0.1 A 8.8 -0.5 23 Dublin Blvd / Brannigan St D B 16.5 B 16.7 B 16.1 -0.4 B 19.6 2.9 35 Project Dwy #9 / Dublin Blvd D B 13.5 C 30.2 B 10.9 -2.6 B 16.2 -14.0 IntersectionInt #AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 2019 Errata Existing + Project Criteria AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 2018 Draft EIR LOS Delay LOS Delay Δ 13 Tassajara Rd / The Shops D C 21.3 B 18.1 -3.2 14 Tassajara Rd / Dublin Blvd D D 44.0 D 41.5 -2.5 35 Project Dwy #9 / Dublin Blvd D D 40.6 B 17.9 -22.7 Int #Intersection Criteria Existing + Project 2018 Draft EIR 2019 Errata SAT Peak Hour SAT Peak Hour City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR | Page 23 1/16/20 previously analyzed, except for the northbound left turn movement at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard in the AM and PM pea k hours. However, the queue for this movement is contained within the available storage pocket and , therefore, impacts would remain less than significant. For the Existing Plus Project scenario, the revised project would not result in any new LOS or queuing impacts. Near-term (2025) Plus Project The intersection LOS and queuing were compared for the previous Near-term (2025) Plus Project scenario and the revised Near-term (2025) Plus Project scenario. As shown in Table 7: Near-term (2025) Plus Project Weekday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 and Table 8: Near-term (2025) Plus Project Saturday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019, each study intersection operates at a lower delay or stays below the LOS D threshold in the Near-term (2025) Plus Project scenario. The majority of the intersections have a lower delay for the revised project as compared to the previous project. The intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard operates at a deficient LOS F in the PM peak hour, but the intersection op erates better for the revised project due to the lower trip generation of the revised project. During the Saturday peak hour, the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard and the signalized intersection on Dublin Boulevard between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street have a lower delay for the revised project as compared to the previous project. Since there are no intersections that would operate unacceptably or increase delay, there would be no new significant impacts. Table 7: Near-term (2025) Plus Project Weekday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 Note: Locations shown in bold reflect a deficient level of service. LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Δ LOS Delay Δ 12 Tassajara Rd / Central Pkwy D C 23.5 B 18.5 C 23.5 0.0 B 18.9 0.4 13 Tassajara Rd / The Shops D B 12.7 B 19.3 B 10.1 -2.6 B 17.3 -2.0 14 Tassajara Rd / Dublin Blvd D D 52.0 F 97.4 D 52.4 0.4 F 93.9 -3.5 15 Tassajara Rd / Dublin Corporate Way D A 6.2 C 23.3 A 6.2 0.0 C 23.7 0.4 21 Central Expy / Brannigan St D C 29.6 B 19.1 C 28.8 -0.8 B 18.5 -0.6 22 Finnian Way / Brannigan St D A 8.4 B 19.1 A 8.2 -0.2 A 8.8 -10.3 23 Dublin Blvd / Brannigan St D B 12.6 B 19.1 B 15.5 2.9 C 24.0 4.9 35 Project Dwy #9 / Dublin Blvd D C 25.6 C 26.4 B 10.7 -14.9 B 16.5 -9.9 Int #Intersection Criteria Near-term (2025) + Project 2018 Draft EIR 2019 Errata AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR | Page 24 1/16/20 Table 8: Near-term (2025) Plus Project Saturday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 Note: Locations shown in bold reflect a deficient level of service. The queuing was also reviewed for the Near-term (2025) Plus Project scenario. For each turning movement at each of the study intersections reviewed, the Near-term (2025) plus Project queue lengths were less than previously analyzed, except for the northbound left turn movement at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard in the AM and PM peak hours. This increase in queue length is due to a reassignment of project traffic due to the change in land uses and concentration of high-density land uses in PA-1. This results in an increase in the number of outbound AM peak hour trips for PA-1, resulting in more trips at some intersections than analyzed in the previous project. For example, because there is a higher concentration of commercial uses on the west end of PA-1, this increases the likelihood of vehicles using the Tassajara Road access, as opposed to the Dublin Boulevard or Brannigan Street access points. For this scenario, the northbound queue would extend past the turn pocket, as was identified in Impact TR-6. The revised project would lengthen this queue by 11 feet in the AM peak hour and two feet in the PM peak hour. However, since this was previously identified as a significant and unavoidable impact, the revised project would not result in a new significant impact. For the Near-term (2025) Plus Project scenario, the revised project would not result in any new LOS or queuing significant impacts. Long-term (2040) Plus Project The intersection LOS and queuing were compared between the previous Long-term (2040) Plus Project scenario and the revised Long-term (2040) plus Project scenario. As shown in Table 9: Long-term (2040) Plus Project Weekday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 and Table 10: Long-term (2040) Plus Project Saturday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019, each study intersection operates at a lower delay or stays below the LOS D threshold in the Long-term (2040) Plus Project scenario. The majority of the intersections have a lower delay as compared to the previous project. Since there are no intersections that would operate unacceptably or increase delay, there would be no new significant impacts. LOS Delay LOS Delay Δ 13 Tassajara Rd / The Shops D C 29.5 C 28.5 -1.0 14 Tassajara Rd / Dublin Blvd D F 119.4 F 102.7 -16.7 35 Project Dwy #9 / Dublin Blvd D E 59.2 B 17.6 -41.6 Int #Intersection Criteria Near-term (2025) + Project 2018 Draft EIR 2019 Errata SAT Peak Hour SAT Peak Hour City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR | Page 25 1/16/20 Table 9: Long-term (2040) Plus Project Weekday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 Note: Locations shown in bold reflect a deficient level of service. Table 10: Long-term (2040) Plus Project Saturday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 Note: Locations shown in bold reflect a deficient level of service. The intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard operates at a deficient LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours, but the intersection operates better with the revised project than with the previous project due to the lower trip generation. The intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Brannigan Street operates at a deficient LOS F in the PM peak hour, but the intersection operates better with the revised project t han with the previous project due to the lower cycle length needed at this intersection. During the Saturday peak hour, the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard and the signalized intersection on Dublin Boulevard between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street would have a lower delay with the revised project as compared to the previous project. The queuing was also reviewed for the Long-term (2040) Plus Project scenario. For each turning movement at each of the study intersections reviewed, the Long-term (2040) plus Project queue lengths with the revised project would be less than previously analyzed, except for the northbound left turn movement at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard in the AM and PM peak hours. For this scenario, the northbound queue did extend past the turn pocket, and was identified in Impact TR-9. The revised project would lengthen this queue by 12 feet in the AM peak hour and six feet in the PM peak hour. However, since this was previously identified as a significant and unavoidable impact, the revised project would not result in a new significant impact. LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Δ LOS Delay Δ 12 Tassajara Rd / Central Pkwy D C 22.6 C 21.7 C 22.9 0.3 C 23.0 1.3 13 Tassajara Rd / The Shops D B 12.2 B 19.6 B 10.5 -1.7 B 16.8 -2.8 14 Tassajara Rd / Dublin Blvd D F 88.8 F 183.6 F 88.0 -0.8 F 175.6 -8.0 15 Tassajara Rd / Dublin Corporate Way D A 6.2 B 18.3 A 6.2 0.0 B 18.5 0.2 21 Central Expy / Brannigan St D C 27.8 C 23.3 C 27.0 -0.8 C 22.1 -1.2 22 Finnian Way / Brannigan St D A 8.4 B 10.3 A 8.3 -0.1 A 9.6 -0.7 23 Dublin Blvd / Brannigan St D B 16.8 F 104.9 C 22.2 5.4 F 90.0 -14.9 35 Project Dwy #9 / Dublin Blvd D A 9.5 D 46.8 B 11.9 2.4 C 21.1 -25.7 Int #Intersection Criteria Long-term (2040) + Project 2018 Draft EIR 2019 Errata AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay Δ 13 Tassajara Rd / The Shops D C 24.6 C 20.8 -3.8 14 Tassajara Rd / Dublin Blvd D F 156.1 F 148.7 -7.4 35 Project Dwy #9 / Dublin Blvd D E 78.6 C 20.2 -58.4 Int #Intersection Criteria Long-term (2040) + Project 2018 Draft EIR 2019 Errata SAT Peak Hour SAT Peak Hour City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR | Page 26 1/16/20 For the Long-term (2040) plus Project Plus Project scenario, the revised project would not result in any new LOS or queuing impacts. Transportation Conclusions The revised project would not result in worsening below the LOS D criteria and queuing conditions compared to the previous project, except for the northbound left turn queue at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard in the Near-term (2025) Plus Project scenarios and the Long-term (2040) Plus Project scenarios. However, the revised project increases the queue length by a maximum of 12 feet (less than one vehicle length) as compared to the previous project. This queuing impact was previously identified as a significant and unavoidable impact in the EIR and, therefore, is not a new or substantially more severe significant impact. The revised project would still be required to implement the transportation mitigation measures identified in the EIR. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to transportation for the revised project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no other CEQA standards for recirculation are met . Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required. Utilities and Service Systems The Final EIR determined that impacts to water supplies or treatment facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, stormwater drainage facilities, and landfills, would be less than significant. Similar to the previous project, the revised project would also connect to the existing underground potable and non-potable recycled DSRSD water lines and sewer lines located within the right-of-way of the adjacent roadways. The Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared by DSRSD concluded in a potable water (interior) demand of 0.20 MGD. Applying the same methodology, the revised project is estimated to have an interior potable water demand of 126,825 gallons per day (gpd), which would be a reduction of 73,175 gpd compared to the previous project. Per Technical Memorandum – Supplemental Water Supply Assessment and Water and Sewer System Capacity Analysis for the Updated Proposed AT Dublin Development Project prepared by West Yost Associates (January 2020), review of the revised project showed a slight decrease in service demands due to a reduction in residential units and less intense commercial uses. The design and planning criteria set by DSRSD’s 2016 Water System Master Plan and 2019 Collection System Master Plan set the capacity of the potable and recycled water, and wastewater collection system. The slight decrease in service demands would not alter the sizes of the potable and recycled storage and pumping facilities. However, the project engineer would need to modify the potable water, recycled water, and collection system pipeline alignments so that they are within approved street alignments and provi de service demands. City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR | Page 27 1/16/20 With adherence to applicable regulations, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to water supplies or treatment facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, stormwater drainage facilities, and landfills for the revised project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no other CEQA standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required. Energy Conservation The Final EIR determined that project construction activities would not substantially affect existing energy or fuel supplies or resources based on the previous project’s low construction fuel use proportional to State and Alameda County consumption. The Final EIR determined that operation of uses under the previous project would not substantially affect existing energy or fuel supplies or resources. The project would comply with applicable energy standards and new capacity would not be required. Impacts were determined to be less than significant. Given the revised project proposes a reduction in residential units and commercial uses, there would be a reduced demand to energy consumption for construction and operation than previously analyzed in the Final EIR. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to energy conservation for the revised project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no other CEQA standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required. Not to scale At Dublin - Revised Errata Figure 1: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations Source: Shea Properties, 2019 Not to scaleAt Dublin - RevisedErrataSource: Shea ProperƟ es, 2019Figure 2: Conceptual Site Plan Not to scale At Dublin - Revised Errata Source: Shea Properties, 2019 Figure 3: Phasing Plan At Dublin - Revised Errata Source: Shea Properties, 2019 Figure 4a: Project Renderings - Commercial Source: Shea Properties, 2019 Figure 4b: Project Renderings - Commercial Plazas At Dublin - RevisedErrata At Dublin - Revised Errata Source: Shea Properties, 2019 Figure 4c: Project Renderings - Multifamily Source: Shea Properties, 2019 Figure 4d: Project Renderings - Single-Family Residential At Dublin - RevisedErrataSource: Shea ProperƟ es, 2019Figure 4e: Project Renderings - View North on Tassajara Road at I-580 Overcrossing 1 EXHIBIT C FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and 15163(e), the City Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to the potential for significant supplemental environmental impacts from the At Dublin project (“Project”) and means for mitigating those impacts. Many of the impacts and mitigation measures in the following findings are summarized rather than set forth in full. The text of the Draft and Final EIRs (EIRs) should be consulted for a complete descr iption of the impacts and mitigations. Findings pursuant to section 21081(c) relating to Project Alternatives are made in Exhibit E. These findings do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the EIR. Instead, the findings provide a summary description of each impact, describe the applicable mitigation measures identified in the EIR and adopted by the City, and state the findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the EIR, and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in those documents supporting the EIR’s determinations regarding mitigation measures and the Project’s impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. The facts supporting these findings are found in the record as a whole for the Project. In making these findings, the City ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the analysis and explanation in the EIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates in these findings the determinations and conclusions of the EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings. SECTION 5. AESTHETICS Impact AES-4: Introduce new light and glare to the project site and project area Mitigation Measure: MM AES-4.1: Exterior Lighting Control Plan To minimize the adverse impact associated with light and glare, the applicant shall submit an exterior lighting control plan for review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit for vertical construction for building lighting or approval of the final landscape plan for all other site lighting. The exterior lighting control plan shall address the design and install all permanent exterior lighting and all temporary construction lighting such that: (a) lamps and reflectors are not directly visible from beyond the project site, as feasible; (b) lighting does not cause excessive reflected glare; (c) direct lighting does not illuminate the nighttime sky; (d) 2 illumination of the project and its immediate vicinity is minimized; and (e) the lighting mitigation plan complies with all relevant local policies and ordinances. The exterior lighting control plan shall include the following: • A photometric study that demonstrates spillover horizontal foot -candle (fc) levels do not exceed 1.0 fc at the project site boundary. • Identification of the location and direction of light fixtures that take the lighting control requirements into account; • Lighting design that considers setbacks of project features from the site boundary to aid in satisfying the lighting control requirements; • Lighting design that incorporates fixture hoods/shielding, with light directed downward or toward the area to be illuminated; • Light fixtures that are visible from beyond the project boundary shall have cutoff angles that are sufficient to prevent lamps and reflectors from being visible beyond the project boundary, except where necessary for security; • Lighting figures that are a minimum necessary brightness, consistent with operational safety and security; and • Where lights in high illumination areas not occupied on a continuous basis, utilize timer switches or motion detectors so that the lights operate only when the area is occupied. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. Impact AES-5: Contribute to cumulatively considerable aesthetic impacts Mitigation Measure: Implement MM AES-4.1: Exterior Lighting Control Plan Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. 3 SECTION 6. AIR QUALITY Impact AQ-1: Conflict with implementation of San Francisco Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan Mitigation Measures: MM AQ-2.1 BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures During construction, the following BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures air pollution control measures shall be implemented: • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction Equipment Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation to the City of Dublin that demonstrate that all off -road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meets United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 Final off-road emissions standards. MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating The applicant shall require by contract specifications that the interior architectural coating (paint and primer) products used would have a volatile organic compound rating of 20 grams per liter or less while exterior architectural coating must be less th an 100 grams 4 per liter. Contract specifications shall be included in the construction documents for the project, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin. MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces The installation of wood-burning devices shall be prohibited within the development per Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regulation 6, Rule 3. The purpose of this rule is to limit emissions of particulate matter and visible emissions from wood -burning devices used for primary heat, supplemental heat or ambiance. This prohibition shall be noted on the deed for future property owners to obey. Natural gas fireplaces are acceptable. Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. The project’s cumulative impact would exceed the air quality thresholds established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for certain emissions (See Impact AQ-2). The project would conflict with the attainment of the Clean Air Plan. For the impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable, no additional feasible measures are available to further reduce these impacts. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding: Despite implementation of MM AQ-2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4, the project’s cumulative impact would exceed the air quality thresholds established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for certain emissions and conflict with the attainment of the Clean Air Plan. Impact AQ-2: Violates air quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation Mitigation Measures: Implement MM AQ-2.1: BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction Equipment, MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating, and MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. The project’s cumulative impact would exceed the air quality thresholds established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for certain emissions. For those impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable, no additional feasible measures are available to further reduce these impacts. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. 5 Rationale for Finding: Despite implementation of MM AQ-2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4, the project’s impact would exceed the air quality thresholds established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for certain emissions. Impact AQ‐5: Contribute to cumulatively considerable air quality impacts. Mitigation Measures: Implement MM AQ-2.1: BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction Equipment, MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating, and MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Despite implementation of MM AQ-2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4, the project’s cumulative impact would exceed the air quality thresholds established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for certain emissions. For those impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable, no additional feasible measures are av ailable to further reduce these impacts. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. SECTION 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact BIO-1: Have a substantial adverse effect on special-status plant and wildlife species Mitigation Measures: MM BIO-1.1: Special-Status Plants Avoidance and Mitigation Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for development activities involving ground disturbance, the project applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following: Prior to any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities, a focused survey shall be conducted to determine the presence of Congdon’s tarplant or other special -status species with potential to occur within the project area. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFG 2009). These guidelines require rare plant surveys to be conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both “evident” and identifiable. Field surveys shall be scheduled 6 to coincide with known blooming periods, and/or during periods of physiological development that are necessary to identify the plant species of concern. If no special - status plant species are found, then the project will not have any impacts to the species and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. If any of the species are found on - site and cannot be avoided, the following measures shall be required: 1. If the survey determines that Congdon’s tarplant or other special-status species are present within or adjacent to the project site, direct and indirect impacts of the project on the species shall be avoided where feasible through the establishment of activity exclusion zones, where no ground-disturbing activities shall take place, including construction of new facilities, construction staging, or other temporary work areas. Activity exclusion zones for special-status plant species shall be established prior to construction activities around each occupied habitat site, the boundaries of which shall be clearly marked with standard orange plastic construction exclusion fencing or its equivalent. The establishment of activity exclusion zones shall not be required if no construction-related disturbances would occur within 250 feet of the occupied habitat site. The size of activity exclusion zones may be reduced through consultation with a qualified biologist and with concurrence from CDFW based on site-specific conditions. 2. If exclusion zones and avoidance of impacts on Congdon’s tarplant or other special-status species within the project area are not feasible, then the loss of individuals or occupied habitat of special-status plants shall be compensated for through the acquisition, protection, and subsequent management of other existing occurrences. Before the implementation of compensation measures, the project’s applicant shall provide detailed information to the CDFW and lead agency on the quality of preserved habitat, location of the preserved occurrences, provisions for protecting and managing the areas, the responsible parties involved, and other pertinent information that demonstrates that the compensation population will be properly preserved and managed. A mitigation pl an identifying appropriate mitigation ratios at a minimum ratio of 1:1 [one preserved acre for each impacted arce] to ensure no net loss of acreage shall be developed in consultation with the CDFW and approved by the City prior to the commencement of any a ctivities that would impact Congdon’s tarplant or other species with potential to occur within the project area. A mitigation plan may include but is not limited to the following: the acquisition of off-site mitigation areas presently supporting the Congdon’s tarplant or other special-status species, purchase of credits in a mitigation bank that is approved to sell credits for special-status plants, or payment of in-lieu fees to a public agency or conservation organization (e.g., a local land trust) for th e preservation and management of existing populations of special-status plants. MM BIO-1.2: Burrowing Owl Avoidance, Exclusion and Required Measures Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for development activities involving ground disturbance, the project applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following: 7 Mitigate for Loss of Burrowing Owl Habitat The majority of project site, with the exception of delineated wetlands, developed areas, and areas with tree cover (73.64 acres), has been determined to potentially provide habitat or foraging areas for burrowing owl. Therefore, the applicant shall imple ment compensatory mitigation for loss of owl habitat in accordance with the standards set forth in the Required Mitigation Plan section below. Additional measures below will avoid direct impacts to individuals that may occupy the site during construction and implementation of the project. Conduct a Burrowing Owl Survey Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct two pre-construction surveys for the Western burrowing owl on the project site. The first survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to ground -disturbing activities and the second survey within 48 hours of initial ground disturbance. The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the surveys determine owls are present, then the measures set forth below shall be followed. Implement Avoidance Measures If direct impacts to owls can be avoided, prior to the first ground -disturbing activities, the project applicant shall implement the following avoidance measures during all phases of construction to reduce or eliminate potential impacts to California burrowing owls. • A pre-construction survey shall be performed prior to start of ground disturbance activities. This survey will occur regardless of the time of year, as burrowing owls may use the project site during the non-nesting season. The survey shall be performed according to the standards set forth by the Staff Report for Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012). • The project site should be managed to prevent burrowing owl from occupying the site prior to any project activities • All suitable burrows should be closed by hand once it has been determined that the burrow is unoccupied. • Maintenance of the property to ensure burrows are not rebuilt will be necessary throughout the year to preclude the presence of burrowing owl and suitable burrowing owl habitat. Maintenance should occur approximately every 8 weeks, and burrows should be inspected prior to closure to ensure no burrowing owl are present. The frequency of burrow closure may be adjusted based upon ground squirrel and burrow reestablishment progress. • The debris within the project site should be removed. • If discing is chosen as a preferred method for b urrow maintenance, it is recommended that any sensitive biological resources (populations of rare plants, wetland boundaries and any active bird nests, etc.) be flagged by a qualified biologist and avoided. 8 Conduct Burrow Exclusion If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible, prior to the first ground - disturbing activities, the project applicant, in consultation with the CDFW, shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan as indicated and following the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Monitoring of the excluded owls shall be carried out as per the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2012 Staff Report. Required Mitigation Plan The project applicant shall consult with the CDFW and develop a detailed mitigation pl an that shall include replacement of impacted habitat, number of burrows, and burrowing owl at a ratio approved by CDFW to ensure no net loss of species. The mitigation plan shall comply with the requirements set forth in Appendix A of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and the plan shall be reviewed and approved by CDFW and the City prior to the first ground-disturbing activities. MM BIO-1.3: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for development activities from February 1 to August 31, the applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following: Pre-construction Breeding Bird Surveys No more than 14 days prior to initial ground disturbance and vegetation removal during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to perform pre-construction breeding bird surveys. If any nests are found, they shall be flagged and protected with a suitable buffer based on the species. Buffer distance may vary based on species and conditions, but is typically at least 50 feet, and up to 250 feet for raptors. As used in this measure, “suitable” me ans the distance a qualified biologist determines is necessary to ensure no disturbance to nesting. The buffer distance is measured as the straight-line distance between an active nest and the activity, taking both horizontal and vertical distance into account. This mitigation measure does not apply to ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities that occur outside of the nesting season (September 1 to January 31). Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. Impact BIO-3: Have a substantial adverse effect on wetlands or jurisdictional features 9 Mitigation Measure: MM BIO-3.1: Wetland Mitigation Plan Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for development activities involving ground disturbance, the project applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following: The project applicant shall the acquire the appropriate applicable permit(s) (e.g. Section 404, Section 401, Porter-Cologne) from the respective regulating agency(s) (i.e. USACE and/or RWQCB). If necessary, a wetland mitigation plan shall be prepared t hat will establish suitable compensatory mitigation based on the concept of no net loss of wetland habitat values or acreages, to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies. The wetland mitigation plan shall include measures for avoidance, minimization a nd compensation for wetland impacts. Avoidance and minimization measures may include the designation of buffers around wetland features to be avoided or project design measures. Compensation measures shall include the preservation and/or creation of wetlands or other waters. The final mitigation ratio (the amount of wetlands and other water created or preserved compared to the amount impacted) shall be determined by the applicable resource agency(s). The wetland mitigation plan shall include the followin g: 1. Description of wetland types and their expected functions and values; 2. Performance standards and monitoring protocol to ensure the success of the mitigation wetlands over a period of time to be determined by the resource agencies; 3. Engineering plans showing the location, size and configuration of wetlands to be created or preserved; 4. An implementation schedule showing the construction or preservation of mitigation areas shall commence prior to or concurrently with the initiation of construction; and 5. A description of legal protection of the preserved wetlands (such as dedication of fee title, conservation easement and/or an endowment held by an approved conservation organization, government agency or mitigation bank). Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. Impact BIO-6: Contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on biological resources 10 Mitigation Measures: Implement MM BIO-1.1: Special-Status Plants Avoidance and Mitigation, MM BIO-1.2: Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Exclusion Measures, MM BIO-1.3: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures, and MM BIO-3.1: Wetland Mitigation Plan Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. SECTION 8. CULTURAL & TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact CR-1: Cause a substantial adverse change to a known archeological resource Mitigation Measure: MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological Discovery During Construction If buried historic or archaeological resources are discovered during construction, operations shall stop within 50 feet of the find and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to evaluate the resource in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15064.5. The applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the resource does not qualify as a significant resource, then no further protection or study is necessary. If the resource does qualify as a significant resource then the impacts shall be avoided by project activities. If the resource cannot be avoided, adverse impacts to the resource shall be addressed. The archaeologist shall make recommendations concerning approp riate mitigation measures that shall be implemented to protect the resources, including but not limited to excavation and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction within the project area should be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. 11 Impact CR-2: Directly impact a paleontological resource or unique geologic feature Mitigation Measure: MM CR-2.1: Paleontological Resource Monitoring In the event a fossil(s) is discovered during construction for the project, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or delayed until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrat e Paleontology standards. The applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, they shall be avoided by project construction activities and recovered by a qualified paleontologist. Upon completion of the recovery, a paleontological assessment shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist to determine if further monitoring for paleontological resources is required. The assessment shall include (1) the results of any geotechnical investigation prepared for the project area, (2) specific details of the construction plans for the project area, (3) background research, and (4) limited subsurface investigation within the project area. If a high potential to encounter paleontological resources is confirmed, a monitoring plan of further project subsurface construction shall be prepared in conjunction with this assessment. After project subsurface construction has ended, a report documenting monitoring, methods, findings, and further recommendations regarding paleontological resources shall be prepared and submitted to the Director of Community Development. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation me asures, the impact will be less than significant. Impact CR-4: Contribute to cumulatively considerable effects on cultural resources Mitigation Measures: Implement MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological Discovery During Construction, and MM CR-2.1: Paleontological Resource Monitoring Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. 12 Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. SECTION 9. GEOLOGY & SOILS Impact GEO-1: Expose people or structures to potential risk of loss or injury associated with seismic hazards Mitigation Measure: MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Recommendations The project applicant shall consult with a registered geotechnical engineer to prepare a design-level geotechnical investigation that incorporates the recommendations in the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration. The design-level geotechnical report shall address, but not be limited to, site preparation and grading, building foundations, and CBC seismic design parameters. A design -level geotechnical report shall be prepared and submitted in conjunction with Building Permit application(s) and reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin. Recommendations from the design -level geotechnical report shall be incorporated into the final project design and construction documents for each phase of the project. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. Impact GEO-2: Trigger or accelerate substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil Mitigation Measure: Implement MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Recommendations Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. 13 Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. Impact GEO‐3: Expose people or structures to substantial safety risks as a result of liquefaction Mitigation Measure: Implement MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Recommendations Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. Impact GEO‐4: Contribute to cumulatively considerable effects on geology and soils Mitigation Measure: Implement MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Recommendations Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. SECTION 11. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Impact HAZ-1: Exposure to known hazardous contaminants Mitigation Measure: MM HAZ- 1.1: Disposal of Deleterious Materials 14 Prior to any ground disturbance on Planning Area 3 (APN 985 -52-24), the project applicant shall retain a qualified hazardous materials contractor to properly dispose of the observed deleterious materials, and any others discovered during remediation. Additionally, the applicant shall close the abandoned Zone 7 water supply well in accordance with applicable regulatory agency requirements. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. Impact HAZ‐4: Contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts to hazards and hazardous materials Mitigation Measure: Implement MM HAZ- 1.1: Disposal of Deleterious Materials Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. SECTION 14. NOISE & VIBRATION Impact N-1: Cause a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during construction that would substantially disturb sensitive receptors Mitigation Measure: MM N-1.1: Construction Noise Reduction To reduce the effects of construction noise, the City of Dublin shall ensure that the project applicants include the following on all construction contracts for the project: • The project shall submit a Construction Noise Management Program that identifies measures proposed to minimize construction noise impacts on existing residents. • All construction operations shall comply with local noise standards and be limited to normal daylight hours. All stationary equipment shall be adequately muffled and located away from sensitive receptors. The construction contractor shall limit all 15 on-site noise-producing construction activities, including deliveries and warming up of equipment, to the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., daily. • The construction contractor shall ensure that all internal combustion engine - driven equipment is equipped with mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. • The construction contractor shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area. In addition, the project contractor shall place such stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site. • The construction contractor shall prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. • The construction contractor shall, to the maximum extent practical, locate on-site equipment staging areas so as to maximize the distance between construction - related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. The construction contractor shall designate a noise disturbance coordinator who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the disturbance coordinator shall notify the City within 24 hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaints (starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem, as deemed acceptable by the City of Dublin Community Development Department. The construction contractor shall conspicuously post the contact name and telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator at the construction site. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. Impact N-3: Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels Mitigation Measure: MM N-3.1: Noise Attenuation Prior to issuance of building permits for Planning Areas 2, 3, and 4, a detailed acoustical study based on architectural plans shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant and submitted to the Community Development Department to demonstrate that all residential units would meet the City’s 60 dBA exterior noise standard for all patios, balconies, and common outdoor living areas. In addition, the acoustical study shall demonstrate that interior noise levels at all residential units at the project s ite would meet 16 the City’s 45 dBA threshold. This mitigation measure complies with the applicable sections of the California Building Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) and City Implementing Policy H. The necessary noise reduction may be achieved by implementing noise control measures at the receiver locations. Where closed windows are required to achieve the interior 45 dBA CNEL limit, project plans and specifications shall include ventilation as required by the California Building Code. The final grading and building plans shall incorporate the required noise barriers (patio enclosure, wall, berm, or combination wall/berm), and the property owner/developer shall install these barriers and enclosures. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. Impact N-4: Result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels Mitigation Measure: Implement MM N-1.1: Construction Noise Reduction Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. Impact N-6: Contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on noise Mitigation Measures: Implement MM N-1.1: Construction Noise Reduction, MM N-3.1: Noise Attenuation Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. 17 Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. SECTION 17. TRANSPORTATION & CIRCLUATION Impact TR-1: Create a potentially dangerous new intersection Mitigation Measure: MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design Features for the New Project Intersection on Dublin Boulevard Turn Movement Design Features on Dublin Boulevard Prior to approval of the first building permit for development in Planning Area 1 or 2, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director that design features have been incorporated into the development plans that prohibit northbound and southbound left turn movements onto Dublin Boulevard at the new intersection during the weekday and weekend time periods (defined below); or alternative improvements have been incorporated that modify or eliminate the need for the prohibited turn movements. Time periods are defined as: Weekday = 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM Weekday = 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM Weekend Peak = 10:30 AM to 2:30 PM Should the City determine that queuing impacts extend beyond these time periods, the City may modify these time periods accordingly to ensure impacts remain less than significant. • Design features could include: • Moveable bollards, • Gated lane control systems, • Raised curbs, • Temporary traffic control devices, • Changeable message signs, • Flashing signal heads, • Modifying the ingress/egress circulation on Brannigan Street and/or Tassajara Road, and/or • Other means as deemed acceptable by the Public Works Director. At any such time after full build-out and occupancy of the project, the applicant may submit additional traffic analysis to the City, that would be independently verified, demonstrating that the time periods may be adjusted or that the prohibited turning movements are no longer required, such that impacts are maintained at a less than significant level, as deemed acceptable by the Public Works Director. 18 Impact TR-2: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Existing + Project condition that exceed established LOS standards Mitigation Measures: MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements to El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of Pleasanton to pay the project’s proportionate fair share (2 percent) for improvements to the intersection of El Charro Road / Jack London Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the signal timing splits by adjusting the maximum green time for each movement to better match the vehicle demand for that particular movement. The primary change would be to increase the split for the eastbound left turn movement due to the high eastbound left turn traffic volumes. MM TR-2-2: Implementation of a Travel Demand Management (TDM Program) Travel Demand Management (TDM) Program Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to the City of Dublin for review and approval. The project applicant shall be responsible for fully funding and implementing the TDM program. The TDM program shall be prepared by a qualified transportation consultant/ engineer in coordination with the project applicant and City staff. The TDM program may include but not be limited to the following measures: • Implement a subsidy program that would provide BART tickets at no co st or subsidized rate to all employees. • Provide a shuttle service between the project site and the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. • Implement a Commuter Tax Benefit Program or equivalent, per Section 132(F) of federal tax code, where an employer can offer its employees a monthly subsidy for public transit. • Join City Car Share or similar program as a "Biz Prime" member and pay for membership of a minimum of 5% employees. • Provide bicycle parking facilities for 20% of car spaces, or a number approved by the City. • Provide secured bicycle parking (lockers or cages) for employees. • Partner with local businesses (e.g. Kaiser Medical Center) in the formation of a Transportation Management Association (TMA) • Facilitate employer‐sponsored carpooling and ride‐matching programs. • Provide preferential carpool parking. • Implement a guaranteed ride home program. • Provide an on‐site car share program. 19 • Encourage employee flexible work scheduling practices to avoid peak‐hour travel (flex time, staggered shifts, compressed work schedules, etc.). • Co-sponsor a transportation fair once a year with At Dublin businesses. Invite Wheels, 511.org, and at least two other commute alternative service providers to attend and distribute commute alternative information. Provide refreshments to participants. • Promote and distribute hard copy information quarterly to all employees regarding 511, Ridematch, Guaranteed Ride Home Program, Wheels/LAVTA, shuttles to regional transit, City CarShare program, and other relevant alternative transportation options. • Distribute information quarterly regarding transportation alternatives by email to all employees. • Provide a kiosk(s) with brochures, and similar items that provide information about the TDM program. Create a website with similar information. • Appoint a Commute Coordinator to facilitate information dissemination. The project applicant shall be required to submit a yearly report on/or before September 30 detailing the current status of the TDM measures, summarizing the program’s effectiveness, identifying any changes to the TDM measures that occurred in the previous year, and identifying additional steps to be taken, if necessary, to reduce traffic impacts. Additional details regarding TDM monitoring shall be developed as part of the development of the TDM program. Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable to El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard, Less than significant in all other locations. Finding: Changes or alterations have been identified which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR ; however, the intersection of El Charro Road/Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard is located within the City of Pleasanton and therefore out of the authority of the City of Dublin to ensure implementation. For the impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable, no additional feasible measures are available to further reduce these impacts. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding: The mitigation measures would improve operations to an acceptable LOS D in the PM peak hour. However, since the mitigation is located in the City of Pleasanton and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee implementation of the mitigation measure, the impacts remains significant and unavoidable. Impact TR-3: Cause intersection queues to operate below acceptable levels under Existing + Project conditions Mitigation Measures: Implement MM TR-2.2: Implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program 20 MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall pay the project’s proportionate fair share (17%) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway. The improvements shall consist of extending the westbound left turn pocket by 55 feet from 190 feet to 245 feet. The re is an existing raised median that can be modified to lengthen the turn pocket. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs. MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s proportionate fair share (7 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the green time for the westbound left turn movement. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs. MM TR-3.3: Existing + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s proportionate fair share (15 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the green time for the eastbound left turn movement. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs. MM TR-3.4: Existing + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / EB I -580 Ramps Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of Pleasanton to pay the project’s proportionate fair share (16 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps. The improvements shall consist of extending the southbound left turn pocket by 25 feet from 405 feet to 430 feet. There is an existing raised median that can be modified to lengthen the turn pocket. MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project Driveway Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the entirety (100 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the green time for the northbound left turn movement. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay for the entirety of the mitigation costs. Resulting Significance: Significant and unavoidable to Santa Rita Road/EB 1-580 Ramps, Less than significant in all other locations. 21 Finding: Changes or alterations have been identified which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR; however, the Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps is located within the City of Pleasanton and therefore out of the authority of the City of Dublin to ensure implementation. For the impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable, no additional feasible measures are available to further reduce these impacts. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding: Implementation of MM TR-2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.5 would reduce impacts to less than significant. MM TR-3.4 would extend the southbound left turn pocket by 25 feet from 405 feet to 430 feet. The increase in the turn pocket storage of 25 feet would mitigate the project’s increase in the queue by 25 feet. However, since the intersection is located in the City of Pleasanton and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee implementation of the mitigation measure, the impacts remains significant and unavoidable. Impact TR-4: Increase vehicle densities along study freeway segments and ramps in the Existing + Project condition that exceed established LOS standards Mitigation Measures: Implement MM TR-2.2: Implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Improvements Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) to pay all applicable regional transportation impact fees related to freeway improvements. MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering Improvements Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay for the City of Dublin to work with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to review the ramp metering rates at the WB I-580 Tassajara Road diagonal on-ramp in the AM peak period. Increasing the ramp metering rate would reduce the vehicle queues on Tassajara Road. In addition, the project applicant shall pay for the City of Dublin to work with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to review the ramp metering rates at the EB I-580 El Charro Road loop on- ramp in the PM peak period. Increasing the ramp metering rate would reduce the vehicle queues on El Charro Road. However, since the City of Dublin does not have control over ramp metering rates at this location, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Finding: Changes or alterations have been identified which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR; however as the construction timing of these improvements is unknown as full funding has not been identified, this 22 impact would remain significant and unavoidable. For the impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable, no additional feasible measures are available to further reduce these impacts. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding: The implementation of MM TR-2.2, 4.1 and 4.2 would reduce impacts, but the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable because the impacted locations are outside the jurisdiction of the City and implementation is beyond the City’s control. Impact TR-5: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Near-Term + Project condition that exceed established LOS standards Mitigation Measures: Implement MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements to El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard, MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design Features for the New Project Intersection on Dublin Boulevard, and MM TR-2.2: Implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program, MM TR-5.1: Near-Term + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of Pleasanton to pay the project’s proportionate fair share (8 percent) for improvements to the intersection of Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the coordination of the traffic signals along Santa Rita Road by increasing the cycle length from 105 seconds to 115 seconds. Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable for El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard and Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard; Less than significant in all other locations. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. However, the impacts to for El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard and Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard would remain significant and unavoidable. For the impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable, no additional feasible measures are available to further reduce these impacts. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding: Implementation of MM TR-1 and 2.2 would reduce the related impact to less than significant. However, the impacts to for El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard and Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard would remain significant and unavoidable because the impacted locations are outside the jurisdiction of the City and implementation is beyond the City’s control. 23 Impact TR-6: Cause intersection queues to operate below acceptable levels under Near-Term + Project conditions Mitigation Measures: Implement MM TR-2.2: Implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program, MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway, MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard, and MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project Driveway MM TR-6.1: Near-Term + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s proportionate fair share (15%) of improvements to the intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the cycle length in the AM peak hour to be 155 seconds and adjusting the green time for the northbound left turn movement in the PM Peak hour. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs. MM TR-6.2: Near-Term + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s proportionate fair share (6 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the green time for the eastbound left turn movement. Be cause this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs. MM TR-6.3: Near-term + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project Driveway Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the entirety (100 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the cycle length at t his intersection from 110 seconds to 120 seconds. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay for the entirety of the mitigation costs. Resulting Significance: Significant and unavoidable to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard, impacts to all other locations are less than significant. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR; however, the queue length would stretch beyond the storage pockets of the northbound and westbound turns at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard in the near-term condition which would remain significant and unavoidable. For the impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable, no additional feasible 24 measures are available to further reduce these impacts. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding: MM TR-6.1 would not reduce the westbound left turn queue to be contained within the storage pocket or to better than without project conditions. Therefore, the queuing impact to the northbound left turn movement in the PM peak hour and SAT peak hour remains significant and unavoidable. Implementation of MM TR-6.1 would not reduce the northbound left turn queue to be contained within the storage pocket or to better than without project conditions in the Saturday peak hour. Therefore, the queuing impact to the westbound left turn movement in the Saturday peak hour remains significant and unavoidable. With the implementation of mitigation measures , for all other intersections, the impact would be less than significant at all other intersections. Impact TR-7: Increase vehicle densities along study freeway segments and ramps in the Near-Term + Project conditions that exceed established LOS standards Mitigation Measure: Implement MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Improvements, MM TR-2.2: Implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program, and MM TR- 4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering Improvements MM TR-7.1: Near-Term + Project Ramp Metering Improvements Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay for the City of Dublin to work with Caltrans to review the ramp metering rates at the EB I -580 Hacienda Drive loop on-ramp in the PM peak period. Increasing the ramp metering rate would reduce the vehicle queues on Hacienda Drive. Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Finding: Changes or alterations have been identified which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR; however as the construction timing of these improvements is unknown as full funding has not been identified, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. For the impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable, no additional feasible measures are available to further reduce these impacts. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact TR-8: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Cumulative + Project conditions that exceed established LOS standards Mitigation Measures: 25 Implement MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design Features for the New Project Intersection on Dublin Boulevard, MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements to El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard, and MM TR-2.2: Implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program MM TR-8.1: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s proportionate fair share (10 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the signal timing splits. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs. MM TR-8.2: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Brannigan Street / Dublin Boulevard Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s proportionate fair share (8 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Brannigan Street / Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adding a second northbound left turn lane of equal length. The south leg of this intersection will likely need to be widened to fit the additional northbound left turn lane. Since the western side of Brannigan Street fronts the project, it is recommended that this improvement be installed as part of the project to prevent future widening after the project has been constructed. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs. MM TR-8.3: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Fallon Road / Dublin Boulevard Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s proportionate fair share (2 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Fallon Road / Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of installing a westbound right turn overlap phase. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs. MM TR-8.4: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Keegan Street Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s proportionate fair share (5 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Dublin Boulevard / Keegan Street. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the cycle length to 150 seconds. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs. MM TR-8.5: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Lockhart Street Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s proportionate fair share (4 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Dublin Boulevard / Lockhart Street. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the cycle length to 150 seconds. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs. 26 MM TR-8.6: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of Pleasanton to pay the project’s proportionate fair share (8 percent) for improvements to the intersection of Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the coordination of the traffic signals along Santa Rita Road by increasing the cycle length from 105 seconds to 145 seconds. Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable for Santa Rita Road/ Las Positas Boulevard, less than significant in all other areas. Finding: Changes or alterations have been identified which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR , except for Santa Rita Road/Las Positas Boulevard and El Charro Road/Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard which would be significant and unavoidable. For the impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable, no additional feasible measures are available to further redu ce these impacts. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding: Implementation of mitigation measures, would result in less than significant impacts except for the impacts at Santa Rita Road/Las Positas Boulevard and El Charro Road/Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard which be significant and unavoidable because the locations are outside the City’s jurisdiction and the City does not have control over the coordination of the traffic signals in the City of Pleasanton Impact TR-9: Cause intersection queues to operate below acceptable levels under Cumulative + Project conditions Mitigation Measures: Implement MM TR-2.2: Implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program, MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway, MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard, MM TR-6.1: Near-Term + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard, MM TR-6.2: Near-Term + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street, MM TR-8.2: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Brannigan Street / Dublin Boulevard, and MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project Driveway MM TR-9.1: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Grafton Street Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s proportionate fair share (5 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Dublin Boulevard / Grafton Street. The improvements shall consist of extending the eastbound left turn pocket by 85 feet from 220 feet to 305 feet. There is an existing raised median 27 that can be modified to lengthen the turn pocket. The improvements shall also consist of extending the westbound left turn pocket by 140 feet from 230 feet to 305 feet. There is an existing raised median that can be modified to lengthen the turn pocket. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs. Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable for Tassajara / Dublin Boulevard, less than significant in all other areas. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in t he EIR; however, the queue length would stretch beyond the storage pockets of the northbound and westbound turns at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard and that impact would be significant and unavoidable. For the impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable, no additional feasible measures are available to further reduce these impacts.. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding: Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce impacts at all intersections to less than significant except Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard. Implementation of MM TR-6.1 would not reduce the westbound left turn queue to be contained within the storage pocket or to better than without project conditions. Therefore, the queuing impact to the westbound left turn movement in the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and SAT peak hour remains significant and unavoidable. Implementation of MM TR-6.1 would not reduce the northbound left turn queue to be contained within the storage pocket or to better than without project conditions in the S aturday peak hour. Therefore, the queuing impact to the northbound left turn movement in the Saturday peak hour remains significant and unavoidable. Impact TR-10: Increase vehicle densities along study freeway segments and ramps in the Cumulative + Project condition that exceed established LOS standards Mitigation Measures: Implement MM TR-2.2: Implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program, MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Improvements, MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering Improvements, and MM TR-7.1: Near-Term + Project Ramp Metering Improvements Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Finding: Changes or alterations have been identified which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR; however as the construction timing of these improvements is unknown as well as full funding has not been identified, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. For the impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable, no additional feasible measures are available to further 28 reduce these impacts. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding: The impact would remain significant and unavoidable because the identified mitigation requires local and regional funding which has not been fully identified and therefore cannot be guaranteed to be in place at the time of the impact . Impact TR-11: Conflict with applicable congestion management program for designated roads, highway, or freeways Mitigation Measure: Implement MM TR-2.2: Implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program and MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Improvements Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Finding: Changes or alterations have been identified which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR; however as the timing of these improvements is unknown as full funding has not been identified, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. For the impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable, no additional feasible measures are available to further reduce these impacts. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding: The impact would remain significant and unavoidable because the identified mitigation requires local and regional funding which has not been fully identified and therefore cannot be guaranteed to be in place at the time of the impact. Impact TR-13: Increase travel speeds along roadways that exceed established LOS standards Mitigation Measure: Implement MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design Features for the New Project Intersection on Dublin Boulevard and MM TR-2.2: Implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Finding: MM TR-1.1 would improve the average speed and LOS to an acceptable LOS D in the Existing + Project weekday AM peak hour and thereby reduce impacts to less - than-significant; however, MM TR-1.1 would not improve the average speed and LOS to an acceptable LOS D in the Near-term + Project weekday PM peak hour. For the impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable, no additional feasible measures are available to further reduce these impacts. Therefore, the impact would remain significant 29 and unavoidable. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. 1 EXHIBIT D FINDINGS CONCERNING INFEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES AND POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES CEQA provides that decision makers should not approve a project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures that would substantially lessen the significant impacts of the project (CEQA section 21002). The Project EIR ide ntified feasible mitigation measures that would reduce most of the potentially significant impacts to less than significant, as set forth in the Exhibit C findings, above. However, the following impacts in the EIR either remained significant after mitigation or no feasible mitigation was identified: • Air Quality. The project would cause construction impacts associated with the release of nitrogen oxides (NOx) that would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds. Despite implementation of MM AQ-2.2, construction-related NOx emissions would remain significant and unavoidable. The project would also cause operational impacts associated with the release of reactive organic gases (ROG) and NOx that would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds. Despite implementation of MM AQ-2.4, operational emissions from ROG and NOx would remain significant and unavoidable. These impacts would occur through cumulative conditions. • Near-Term + Project Traffic Conditions. The project would increase the critical delay movement by more than six (6) seconds to the intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (#14). This intersection would also experience an increase in queuing due to the project of more than 25 feet during the we ekday AM and PM peak periods and the weekend peak period. This intersection was determined to be over capacity with no feasible mitigation available. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. In addition, there is a LOS impact at the intersection of Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard (Int #18). The project adds 278 trips in the PM peak hour to an already deficient intersection. Mitigation Measure TR-5.1 would improve the operations to an acceptable LOS, however since this in tersection is located in the City of Pleasanton, the City of Dublin cannot guarantee the implementation of the mitigation and therefore it remains significant and unavoidable. In addition, there is a LOS impact at the intersection of El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard (Int #29). The project adds 70 trips in the PM peak hour to an already deficient intersection. Mitigation Measure TR-2.1 would improve the operations to an acceptable LOS, however since this intersection is located in the City of Livermore, the City of Dublin cannot guarantee the implementation of the mitigation and therefore it remains significant and unavoidable. • Cumulative + Project Traffic Conditions. The project would contribute new trips to facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels; namely, Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (#14), Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard (#18), El Charro Road / Jack London Boulevard (#29), Project Driveway / Dublin Boulevard (#35). 2 All feasible mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate impacts to levels better than without project conditions; except for the intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (#14). No feasible mitigation is available for this intersection, similar to the Near-term + Project conditions. In addition, Intersections #18 and #29 are located outside of the City of Dublin, and therefore the implementation of the mitigations cannot be guaranteed. • Arterials. The project would contribute new trips to the already congested study roadway segments along Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard. These arterials are already over capacity in the future conditions and operate at LOS F based on average travel speeds from the SimTraffic analysis. Since there are no feasible mitigations to improve the average travel speeds to LOS D or better, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. • Freeways. The project would contribute new trips to the already congested project study freeway segments from Dougherty Road to Airway Boulevard on I-580. These segments are already over capacity and should be operating at LOS F volumes for the westbound direction in the AM peak hour and the volumes for the eastbound direction in the PM peak hour are constrained by downstream bottlenecks. While the project would be required to pay their proportional share of traffic impact fees, these freeway segments will continue to operate in an over capacity manner. Therefore, the residual significance is significa nt and unavoidable. • Ramp Metering. The project would contribute new trips to the Hacienda Drive loop on- ramp to EB I-580 in the PM peak, to the Tassajara Road diagonal on -ramp to WB I-580 in the AM peak, and to the El Charro Road loop on -ramp to EB I-580 in the PM peak. Each of these on -ramps have queues that exceed the on-ramp storage and extend onto the arterial with project traffic added. While the project would be required to pay their proportional share of traffic impact fees, the improvements cannot be guaranteed since it is under Caltrans jurisdiction. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. • Congestion Management Program. The project would contribute new trips to Congestion Management Program facilities that would ope rate at unacceptable levels (freeways and major arterials). All feasible mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate impacts; however, in certain cases, they would not fully mitigate the impact to a level of less than significant. In other cases, no feasible mitigation is available. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. As required by CEQA, the following findings address whether there are any feasible alternatives or any additional feasible mitigation measures available that would reduce any of these impacts to less than significant. FINDINGS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES CEQA requires that an EIR “describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of 3 the project…” (CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(a)). If a project alternative will substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of a proposed project, the decision maker should not approve the proposed project unless it determines that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,… make the project alternative infeasible” (CEQA sections 21002 and 21081(a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(3)). Alternatives are identified and analyzed in Section 19 of the Draft EIR and include the required No Project Alternative, Existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Alternative, and Commercial Development Task Force Land Plan Alternative. Each of the alternatives was assessed for each resource topic and compared to potential Project impacts. As further set forth below, the City Council considered the alternatives identified and analyzed in Section 19 of the Draft EIR and finds them to be infeasible for specific economic, social, or other considerations pursuant to CEQA sections 21002 and 21081(a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(3). For CEQA purposes, “feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, technological, and legal factors. (CEQA section 21061.1, CEQA Guidelines section 15364.) In addition to the Project Alternatives described below, the Draft EIR considered and rejected an alternative location, a high school project at the project site and a commercial only project. The Draft EIR found that given the size of the project and the broad mix of uses proposed, it was determined that there are no other suitable undeveloped parcels that do not already have a pending application nor have existing entitlements in the City of Dublin that could accommodate the land uses envisioned for the project. Additionally, the project applicant does not own or otherwise control property of a similar size. The Draft EIR found that the use of the project site as a high school would require a significant change in City policy to change the land use of the entire project to a Public use. It also found that the development of a high school on a portion of the project site would result in a failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, as set forth in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR. In addition, the DUSD has selected the Promenade as their preferred site for the construction of a new high school. During the public scoping process, comments were made recommending future development that was commercial only (e.g. offices and retail), with no residential development. Like the High School Project alternative, this alternative would preclude the development of a mixed-use commercial and residential project as contemplated in the City’s General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. It would also fail to meet most of the basic project objectives as they relate to the development of residential uses. For these reasons, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration. The Project objectives are set forth in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR. Alternative 1: No Project Alternative – DEIR Section 19.4 CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e)(3) requires that a “No -Project” alternative be evaluated as part of an EIR, proceeding under one of two scenarios: the project area remaining in its current state or development of the project area under its current General 4 Plan land use and zoning designations. Because the Project site currently has no planning approvals for a specific project, the No Project Alternative consists of the Project site remaining undeveloped for the foreseeable future. The No Project Alternative would not advance any of the project objectives and the project site would remain undeveloped for the foreseeable future. No disturbance or new development would occur, thereby eliminating the potential for impacts on any of the environmental resources analyzed in this EIR. Accordingly, this alternative would avoid all of the project’s significant impacts (including significant and unavoidable impacts), as well as the need to implement any mitigation measures. The City finds this alternative infeasible because it would not be consistent with any of the Project’s objectives. The No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the following Project objectives: Mix of Uses / Quality of Product 1. Provide a balanced mix of residential and commercial uses in the Eastern Extended Planning Area that integrate into the existing urban systems and provide a safe and attractive environment for living and working as encouraged by General Plan Policy 2.6.4.A.1. 2. Provide uses that meet the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan’s objective to have higher density housing, adjacent to commercial and employment opportunities. 3. Provide land uses and high-quality architecture that complement existing, adjacent land uses and development. Economic Growth 4. Have a positive contribution to the local economy through new capital investment, the creation of new jobs, and the expansion of the tax base. 5. Add commercial, entertainment, and hotel uses that will have a synerg y with existing retail in the City. 6. Provide a mix of residential and commercial uses that achieves a financially feasible project. 7. Provide a project that balances housing with job-creating uses. 8. Develop a project that supports the success of the commercial uses through careful site planning and infrastructure design. Housing 9. Add to the City’s housing diversity in compliance with Housing Element Program 10 and General Plan Policy 2.6.1.A.1 by providing a range of housing products, including apartments, townhomes, and small lot single-family detached homes. 10. Expand and improve the City’s housing supply by developing high -quality housing in a portion of a City-designated Priority Development Area, which is a location planned for growth under the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area. 11. Increase housing on the project site beyond what was initially planned under the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which will help in state-wide efforts to alleviate California’s housing crisis. Responsible Growth 12. Develop vacant and underutilized land in an urban area. 5 13. Locate commercial and residential uses where such uses can take advantage of existing infrastructure and utilities. 14. Provide attractive, well-landscaped commercial uses close to Interstate 580 as a buffer between the highway and residential uses and to further General Plan Policy 10.5.3.E. 15. Enhance the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard consistent with General Plan Goal 10.6.2. Connectivity 16. Complete existing infrastructure to support General Plan buildout conditions consistent with the East Dublin Specific Plan. 17. Implement the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and enhance bicycle and pedestrian safety by providing on-site and off-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities that link with existing facilities along Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive, and Dublin Boulevard. 18. Reconfigure block size and provide publicly accessible parkways, park corridors and paths to improve pedestrian connectivity between residential and commercial uses. 19. Provide and improve pedestrian connections within the project and across adjacent arterial streets to facilitate pedestrian activity between neighborhoods and within the development. Finding: The City Council considered the No Project Alternative and declines to adopt it because it will not achieve any of the Project’s objectives and is infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other considerations described above, as supported by the administrative record for the Project. Alternative 2: Existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Alternative – DEIR Section 19.5 The Existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Alternative would allow development consistent with existing land use designations and development densities as described in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. As shown in Figure 3-3: Existing General Plan and Land Use Designations, this includes designations of Neighborhood Commercial General Commercial, Medium High Density Residential, High Density Residential, and Public/Semi-Public. Most the site is designated General Commercial. As shown in Table 3-1: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Anticipated Project Site Development, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan assumed development of 261 residential units and 902,563 square feet of commercial. Because the entirety of the project site is assumed to be disturbed, impacts to Cultural & Tribal Resources, Geology & Soils, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Hydrology & Water Quality, and construction related Air Quality/GHG Emissions and Noise would be similar to the project. Also, because the types of land uses would be similar and subject to the site and architectural design review, impacts to aesthetics would also be similar. Impacts to Public Services, Utilities, & Service Systems, would generally be similar as this alternative would be developing urban uses, similar to that proposed; with both needing infrastructure to service the site, as well as police, fire, and emergency services. Because the number people living on the project site would be less, impacts to population 6 and housing would be reduced, however, impacts would not be significant for this alternative, similar to the project. This alternative would generate considerably more daily and PM peak hour vehicle trips than the project. These greater vehicle trips would lead to greater operational impacts on traffic, air quality and noise from this alternative than the project. Finding: The City Council considered the Existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Alternative and declines to adopt it because it will not avoid or substantially lessen the Project’s significant impacts, including its significant unavoidable impacts related to transportation and air quality. The project would obtain most of the basic Project objectives; however, the Applicant has stated that the 261 residential units under this Alternative is insufficient to support 902,563 square feet of commercial uses. Therefore, this Alternative is unable to achieve the project objective to provide a mix of residential and commercial uses that achieves a financially feasible project. Alternative 3: Commercial Development Task Force Alternative – DEIR Section 19.6 The Commercial Development Task Force Alternative is derived from recommendations made by the City of Dublin Commercial Development Task Force (CDTF), as documented in their Final Summary of Key Recommendations Report, July 2014. The CDTF was created by the Dublin City Council in March 2014 to examine the potential for additional commercial development throughout Dublin. City staff identified five “opportunity sites” that were the key focus of the CDTF, namely: 1) Downtown Dublin; 2) The Green at Park Place; 3) Dublin Land Company (the project site); 4) The Promenade/Grafton Plaza; and 5) the Chen property. This alternative assumes the development of office use south of Dublin Boulevard. This 23-acre area would be developed at a 0.3 floor-area-ratio (FAR) for a total of 300,564 square feet. The land uses north of Dublin Boulevard would remain the same as the project. This alternative would result in a reduction of 69,436 sf. of commercial land use. The number of residential units (665) would be the same as the proposed project. The mixed of dwelling units and residential density of this alternative would be the same as the project. Because the entirety of the project site is assumed to be disturbed, impacts to Cultural & Tribal Resources, Geology & Soils, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Hydrology & Water Quality, and construction related Air Quality/GHG Emissions and Noise would be similar to the project. Also, because the types of land uses would be similar and subject to the site and architectural design review, impacts to aesthetics would also be similar. Impacts to Public Services, Utilities, & Service Systems, would generally be similar as this alternative would be developing urban uses, similar to that pro posed; with both needing infrastructure to service the site, as well as police, fire, and emergency services. Because there would be no change in the number people living on the project site, impacts to population and housing would be similar to the projec t. This Alternative would generate considerably less trips as compared to the project. Because this Alternative would result in fewer traffic trips, operational impacts to air 7 quality would be less, but would still remain significant and unavoidable. The reduced number of traffic trips would correspond to less operational noise impacts as well. Finding: The City Council considered the Commercial Task Force Alternative and declines to adopt it because it will not avoid or substantially les sen the Project’s significant impacts, including its significant and unavoidable impacts. This Alternative would attain most of the basic Project objectives to the same degree as the proposed Projec t. However, with the use of PA-1 as office, it would fully not attain the Project objective regarding the addition of commercial, entertainment, and hotel uses that will have a synergy with existing retail in the City. According to a memorandum dated November 12, 2018 from Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., as a result of current market conditions, new office development in the Tri-Valley is limited to build-to-suite developments. A tenant has not been identified for this property. In addition, the office space absorption in Dublin has been relatively low which does not support the construction of new speculative office development in the City. The operational impacts to air quality would be less; however, they would still remain significant and unavoidable. FINDINGS REGARDING INFEASIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES There are certain additional mitigation measures and/or modifications to the measures described in the Draft EIR that may lessen significant and unavoidable transportation impacts identified in the Draft EIR. The City carefully considered the proposed additional mitigations, and finds the proposed mitigations infeasible, or otherwise rejects the suggested mitigation, as further described below. In considering specific additional mitigation measures, the City is guided by CEQA’s legal standard to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental effects to the extent feasible. The mitigation measures recommended in the Project EIR represent the professional judgment and experience of the City’s expert staff and enviro nmental consultants. The City therefore believes that these recommendations should not be modified unless necessary to comply with CEQA legal standards. Thus, in considering changes or additions to the mitigation measures, the City, in determining whethe r to accept such modifications, either in whole or in part, has considered the following factors, among others: 1) whether the suggestion relates to a significant and unavoidable environmental effect of the Project, or instead relates to an effect that can already be mitigated to less than significant levels by mitigation measures identified in the EIR; 2) whether the suggested mitigation represents a clear improvement, from an environmental standpoint, over the EIR mitigation that it would replace; 3) whet her the suggested mitigation is sufficiently clear as to be easily understood by those who will implement the mitigation as finally adopted; 4) whether the suggested language might be too inflexible to allow for pragmatic implementation; 5) whether the suggestions are “feasible” as defined under CEQA including being able to be accomplished in a successful manner in a reasonable period of time taking into account economic, environmental, technical, legal, social or other factors; and 6) whether the proposed mitigation is consistent with the Project objectives. The EIR found four intersection locations, two ramp metering locations, roadway segments, and freeway segments that could not be mitigated because physical 8 improvements needed to address impacts were found to be infeasible. These locations include: Roadway Segments on Eastbound Dublin Boulevard To help mitigate the roadway segment impacts on eastbound Dublin Boul evard, one mitigation considered would be to construct up to two additional lanes (up to five in each direction) to increase the capacity of the roadway by 800 vehicles per hour per lane and therefore reduce the volume to capacity ratio. This improvement would require the acquisition of a substantial amount of new right-of way and is contradictory to the City’s Complete Streets Policy, and therefore was not considered feasible, and therefore was eliminated from further consideration. Intersection of El Charro Road / Jack London Boulevard Optimizing the signal timing splits by adjusting the maximum green time for each movement to better match the vehicle demand for that particular movement. The primary change would be to increase the split for the eastbound left turn movement due to the high eastbound left turn traffic volumes. However, since the intersection is located in the City of Pleasanton and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee implementation of the mitigation measure, the impacts remains significant and unavoidable. Intersection of Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps The improvements would extend the southbound left turn pocket by 25 feet from 405 feet to 430 feet. The increase in the turn pocket storage of 25 feet would mitigate the project’s increase in the queue by 25 feet. However, since the intersection is located in the City of Pleasanton and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee implementation of the mitigation measure, the impacts remains significant and unavoidable. Intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard This intersection is projected to already be over capacity under the Near -Term without Project and there are no feasible improvements to increase vehicle capacity. The intersection already includes triple left turns in the westbound and northbound direction, which are the critical turning movements. It is not feasible to add a fourth turn lane in the westbound and northbound directions, as it would trigger not only space for the additional turn lanes but also for the receiving lanes. The impact to surrounding land uses to accommodate these additional lanes will make this alternative infeasible. Additionally, these lane additions are contradictory to the City’s Complete Streets Policy. Furthermore, it is not feasible to extend the signal timing cycle length, since it is at 200 seconds in the Near-Term (2025) conditions, and consequently, it is not possible to further coordinate signal timing with adjacent traffic signals. Given these conditions, physical improvements to the intersection was found to be infeasible and therefore project impacts to the intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard under the Near-Term + Project condition would remain significant and unavoidable. Intersection of Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard The improvements shall consist of optimizing the coordination of the traffic signals along Santa Rita Road by increasing the cycle length from 105 second s to 145 seconds. The intersection is located in the City of Pleasanton and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee implementation of the mitigation, the impact remains significant and unavoidable . 9 Ramp metering at the WB I-580 at Tassajara Road diagonal on-ramp and at the EB I-580 at El Charro Road loop on-ramp Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay for the City of Dublin to work with Caltrans to review the ramp metering rates at the WB I -580 at Tassajara Road diagonal on-ramp in the AM peak period. Increasing the ramp metering rate would reduce the vehicle queues on Tassajara Road. In addition, the project applicant shall pay for the City of Dublin to work with Caltrans to review the ramp meterin g rates at the EB I-580 at El Charro Road loop on-ramp in the PM peak period. Increasing the ramp metering rate would reduce the vehicle queues on El Charro Road. However, since the City of Dublin does not have control over ramp metering rates at this loca tion, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. In addition, the EIR found the project impacts to regional infrastructure could not be mitigated because physical improvements needed to address impacts were found to be infeasible. These locations include: Freeway Segments on I-580 To help mitigate the freeway segment impacts on I-580, regional improvements will be needed. These regional improvements are included in the Countywide Transportation Plan and the Plan Bay Area. The Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fund would provide some seed money for regional funding for these improvements to improve the freeway operations on these segments. Projects from this fund may include the second phase of I-680/I-580 interchange improvements, widening of State Route 84 through Pigeon Pass, and other planned roadway system modifications that would relieve freeway congestion in the study area. However, as the construction timing of these improvements is unknown as full funding has not been identified, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. EXHIBIT E STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of the City of Dublin makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council has balanced the benefits of the At Dublin project (“Project”) to the City of Dublin against the significant adverse impacts identified in the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) that cannot be reduced to less than significant through feasible mitigations or alternatives and would remain significant and unavoidable.. Pursuant to section 15093, the City Council hereby determines that the benefits of the Project outweigh the adverse impacts and the Project should be approved. The City Council has carefully considered each impact in reaching its decision to approve the Project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that implementation of the Project carries with it unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects as identified in the EIR. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent the identified significant adverse impacts for the Project have not been reduced to acceptable levels through feasible mitigation or alternatives, there are specific economic, social, land use and other considerations that support approval of the Project. 2. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts are associated with the Project as identified in the EIR • Air Quality. The project would cause construction impacts associated with the release of nitrogen oxides (NOx) that would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds. Despite implementation of MM AQ-2.2, construction-related NOx emissions would remain significant and unavoidable. The project would also cause operational impacts associated with the release of reactive organic gases (ROG) and NOx that would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds. Despite implementation of MM AQ-2.4, operational emissions from ROG and NOx would remain significant and unavoidable. These impacts would occur through cumulative conditions. • Near-Term + Project Traffic Conditions. The project would increase the critical delay movement by more than six (6) seconds to the intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (#14). This intersection would also experience an increase in queuing due to the project of more than 25 feet during the weekday AM and PM peak periods and the weekend peak period. This intersection was determined to be over capacity with no feasible mitigation available. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. In addition, there is a LOS impact at the intersection of Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard (Int #18). The project adds 278 trips in the PM peak hour to an already deficient intersection. Mitigation Measure TR-5.1 would improve the operations to an acceptable LOS, however since this intersection is located in the 2 City of Pleasanton, the City of Dublin cannot guarantee the implementation of the mitigation and therefore it remains significant and unavoidable. In addition, there is a LOS impact at the intersection of El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard (Int #29). The project adds 70 trips in the PM peak hour to an already deficient intersection. Mitigation Measure TR-2.1 would improve the operations to an acceptable LOS, however since this intersection is located in the City of Livermore, the City of Dublin cannot guarantee the implementation of the mitigation and therefore it remains significant and unavoidable. • Cumulative + Project Traffic Conditions. The project would contribute new trips to facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels; namely, Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (#14), Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard (#18), El Charro Road / Jack London Boulevard (#29), Project Driveway / Dublin Boulevard (#35). All feasible mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate impacts to levels better than without project conditions; except for the intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (#14). No feasible mitigation is available for this intersection, similar to the Near-term + Project conditions. In addition, Intersections #18 and #29 are located outside of the City of Dublin, and therefore the implementation of the mitigations cannot be guaranteed. • Arterials. The project would contribute new trips to the already congested study roadway segments along Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard. These arterials are already over capacity in the future conditions and operate at LOS F based on average travel speeds from the SimTraffic analysis. Since there are no feasible mitigations to improve the average travel speeds to LOS D or better, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. • Freeways. The project would contribute new trips to the already congested project study freeway segments from Dougherty Road to Airway Boulevard on I-580. These segments are already over capacity and should be operating at LOS F volumes for the westbound direction in the AM peak hour and the volumes for the eastbound direction in the PM peak hour are constrained by downstream bottlenecks. While the project would be required to pay their proportional share of traffic impact fees, these freeway segments will continue to operate in an over capacity manner. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. • Ramp Metering. The project would contribute new trips to the Hacienda Drive loop on- ramp to EB I-580 in the PM peak, to the Tassajara Road diagonal on -ramp to WB I-580 in the AM peak, and to the El Charro Road loop on -ramp to EB I-580 in the PM peak. Each of these on-ramps have queues that exceed the on-ramp storage and extend onto the arterial with project traffic added. While the project would be required to pay their proportional share of traffic impact fees, the improvements cannot be guaranteed since it is under Caltrans jurisdiction. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. 3 • Congestion Management Program. The project would contribute new trips to Congestion Management Program facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels (freeways and major arterials). All feasible mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate impacts; however, in certain cases, they would not fully mitigate the impact to a level of less than significant. In other cases, no feasible mitigation is available. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. The EDSP EIR also included the impacts identified above as significant and unavoidable as follows: • Air Quality. Project development as a result of dust deposition, construction equipment emissions, mobile source emissions of ROf and NOx, and stationary source emissions. (Impacts 3.11/A, B, C, E) • Traffic and Circulation. I-580 (Impact 3.3/B, E), intersection of Santa Rita Road and I-580 EB Ramps (Impact 3.3/I), and the intersections of Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road (Impact 3.3/M) 4. Overriding Considerations. The City Council has carefully considered each impact in reaching its decision to approve the At Dublin project. The City Council now balances those unavoidable impacts against the Project’s benefits, and hereby determines that the unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the Project as further set forth below. Any one of these benefits is sufficient to justify approval of the Project. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the record as a whole. • The Project will result in economic and community benefits to the City. The Development Agreement terms provide revenue to the City through its provisions on the phasing of the Project to require the development of the commercial areas before the residential areas. The development of the commercial site will generate sales and property tax revenue to the City as described in the Keyser Marston Fiscal Analysis dated October 2018. In addition, The Development Agreement requires the developer to contribute a sum of $7,000,000 to the City as a community benefit that can be spent at the City Council’s discretion. • The Project will further the goals of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan by providing two public parks, a Neighborhood Square and a Community Building, together totaling 2.33 acres. The 2.23-acre public park adds to the City’s park network as a “Neighborhood Square” as defined in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The project includes a community center/event space consists of approximately 3,000 square feet of indoor space and 1,500 square feet of outdoor space. The Community Building, as specified in the Development Agreement, shall serve as event space and for City programming and will contribute to the City’s effort to add additional community space as defined in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. 4 • The Project will further the goals and policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan by providing a wide range of affordable housing. The Development Agreement provides for an “alternative method of compliance” to comply with the City’s inclusionary housing requirement. The compliance is met though the construction of 46 moderate income units in the proposed apartment building and the acquisition of 1.33-acre parcel at 6543 Regional Street (APN: 941-150-25) from City and dedicating the parcel to a non-profit affordable housing developer to meet the low and very low income unit categories. • The Project will further the General Plan objective of providing a broad range of non-residential uses, including retail commercial, in Eastern Dublin. The project is consistent with Guiding Policy 2.2.4, which encourages “development of a full range of commercial and employment-generating uses in the Eastern Extended Planning Area that will meet the needs of the City and the surrounding Tri -Valley area." This Project provides a much needed retail center convenient to existing and planned future residential uses. • The Project furthers the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan goal to provide for a balanced mixed use community by establishing “an attractive and vital community that provides a balanced and fully integrated range of residential, commercial, employment, recreational, and social opportunities." (Section 4.3.2, p. 32). The project also furthers the Specific Plan goal for commercial land use, to serve "the shopping, entertainment and service needs of Dublin and the surrounding area." (Section 4.5, p. 36). The Project helps the City achieve these goals by providing a variety of commercial, employment, residential and social opportunities in a mixed-use setting. The Project also meets Specific Plan Policy 4-12 to "concentrate regionally oriented commercial uses south of Dublin Boule vard and near freeway interchanges where convenient vehicular access will limit traffic impacts on the rest of eastern Dublin." • The proximity of the Project site to the Interstate 580 and Tassajara Road interchange is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan goals and policies and facilitates efficient transportation. The Project will provide a "destination retail" experience on a visually prominent site accessible from major regional transit and traffic corridors. The site will be developed in a landscaped and "pedestrian-friendly" fashion, with a mix of residential, restaurants and retail services all connected through an central pedestrian spine. The variety of housing types, commercial uses and public spaces provide a new mixed use and social retail experience with a range of retail and restaurant opportunities available to current and future residents of Dublin. For all of the above reasons, the benefits of the At Dublin project outweigh its significant unavoidable environmental impacts. 11/9/2018 At Dublin Mitigation or Monitoring Reporting Program | November 2018 11/9/2018 At Dublin Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program Date November 2018 Project Name At Dublin Project Location The 77.3-acre project site is generally bound by Tassajara Road, Interstate 580, Brannigan Street and Gleason Drive, in the City of Dublin, CA. Project Applicant Shea Properties, in partnership with SCS Development Company State Clearinghouse Number 2018012027 Contact Amy Million Principal Planner City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Phone: 925/833-6610 amy.million@dublin.ca.gov 11/9/2018 Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all public agencies establish monitoring and/or reporting procedures for mitigation measures (MMs) adopted as part of the project approval to mitigate or avoid significant project impacts. The MMRP identifies the following for each MM: Timing. In each case, a timeframe for performance of the mitigation measure, or review of evidence that mitigation has taken place, is provided. The measures are designed to ensure that impact-related components of Project implementation do not proceed without establishing that the mitigation is implemented or assured. All activities are subject to the approval of all required permits from local, State, and federal agencies with permitting authority over the specific activity. Responsible Party or Designated Representative. In each case, unless otherwise indicated, the applicant is the Responsible Party for implementing the mitigation. The City or a Designated Representative will also monitor the performance and implementation of the mitigation measures. To guarantee that the mitigation measure will not be inadvertently overlooked, a supervising public official acting as the Designated Representative is the official who grants the permit or authorization called for in the performance. Where more than one official is identified, permits or authorization from all officials shall be required. The numbering system corresponds with the numbering system used in the Final EIR. The last column of the MMRP table will be used by the parties responsible for documenting when implementation of the MM has been completed. The ongoing documentation and monitoring of mitigation compliance will be completed by the City of Dublin. The completed MMRP will be kept on file at the City of Dublin Community Development Department. City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program Page 3 11/9/2018 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Approval / Monitoring / Implementation Completion Date Initials Aesthetics Prior to issuance of building permit MM AES-4.1: Exterior Lighting Control Plan To minimize the adverse impact associated with light and glare, the applicant shall submit an exterior lighting control plan for review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit for vertical construction for building lighting or approval of the final landscape plan for all other site lighting. The exterior lighting control plan shall address the design and install all permanent exterior lighting and all temporary construction lighting such that: (a) lamps and reflectors are not directly visible from beyond the project site, as feasible; (b) lighting does not cause excessive reflected glare; (c) direct lighting does not illuminate the nighttime sky; (d) illumination of the project and its immediate vicinity is minimized; and (e) the lighting mitigation plan complies with all relevant local policies and ordinances. The exterior lighting control plan shall include the following: ▪ A photometric study that demonstrates spillover horizontal foot-candle (fc) levels do not exceed 1.0 fc at the project site boundary. ▪ Identification of the location and direction of light fixtures that take the lighting control requirements into account; ▪ Lighting design that considers setbacks of project features from the site boundary to aid in satisfying the lighting control requirements; ▪ City of Dublin City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program Page 4 11/9/2018 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Approval / Monitoring / Implementation Completion Date Initials ▪ Lighting design that incorporates fixture hoods/shielding, with light directed downward or toward the area to be illuminated; ▪ Light fixtures that are visible from beyond the project boundary shall have cutoff angles that are sufficient to prevent lamps and reflectors from being visible beyond the project boundary, except where necessary for security; ▪ Lighting figures that are a minimum necessary brightness, consistent with operational safety and security; and ▪ Where lights in high illumination areas not occupied on a continuous basis, utilize timer switches or motion detectors so that the lights operate only when the area is occupied. Air Quality During construction MM AQ-2.1: BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures During construction, the following BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures air pollution control measures shall be implemented: ▪ All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. ▪ All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. ▪ All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. ▪ City of Dublin ▪ Bay Area Air Quality Control Board City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program Page 5 11/9/2018 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Approval / Monitoring / Implementation Completion Date Initials ▪ All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. ▪ All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. ▪ Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. ▪ All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. ▪ Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Prior to issuance of grading permit MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction Equipment Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation to the City of Dublin that demonstrate that all off-road diesel- powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meets United ▪ City of Dublin City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program Page 6 11/9/2018 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Approval / Monitoring / Implementation Completion Date Initials States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 Final off-road emissions standards. Prior to issuance of building permit MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating The applicant shall require by contract specifications that the interior architectural coating (paint and primer) products used would have a volatile organic compound rating of 20 grams per liter or less while exterior architectural coating must be less than 100 grams per liter. Contract specifications shall be included in the construction documents for the project, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin. ▪ City of Dublin Prior to issuance of building permit MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces The installation of wood-burning devices shall be prohibited within the development per Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regulation 6, Rule 3. The purpose of this rule is to limit emissions of particulate matter and visible emissions from wood-burning devices used for primary heat, supplemental heat or ambiance. This prohibition shall be noted on the deed for future property owners to obey. Natural gas fireplaces are acceptable. ▪ City of Dublin Biological Resources Prior to issuance of grading, building or other development permit MM BIO-1.1: Special-Status Plants Avoidance and Mitigation Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for development activities involving ground disturbance, the project applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following: ▪ City of Dublin ▪ CA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program Page 7 11/9/2018 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Approval / Monitoring / Implementation Completion Date Initials Prior to any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities, a focused survey shall be conducted to determine the presence of Congdon’s tarplant or other special-status species with potential to occur within the project area. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFG 2009). These guidelines require rare plant surveys to be conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both “evident” and identifiable. Field surveys shall be scheduled to coincide with known blooming periods, and/or during periods of physiological development that are necessary to identify the plant species of concern. If no special-status plant species are found, then the project will not have any impacts to the species and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. If any of the species are found on-site and cannot be avoided, the following measures shall be required: 1. If the survey determines that Congdon’s tarplant or other special-status species are present within or adjacent to the project site, direct and indirect impacts of the project on the species shall be avoided where feasible through the establishment of activity exclusion zones, where no ground-disturbing activities shall take place, including construction of new facilities, construction staging, or other temporary work areas. Activity exclusion zones for special-status plant species shall be established prior to construction activities around each occupied habitat site, the boundaries of which shall be clearly marked with standard orange plastic construction exclusion fencing or its equivalent. The establishment of activity exclusion zones shall not be required if no construction-related disturbances would occur within 250 feet of the occupied habitat site. The size of activity exclusion zones may be City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program Page 8 11/9/2018 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Approval / Monitoring / Implementation Completion Date Initials reduced through consultation with a qualified biologist and with concurrence from CDFW based on site-specific conditions. 2. If exclusion zones and avoidance of impacts on Congdon’s tarplant or other special-status species within the project area are not feasible, then the loss of individuals or occupied habitat of special-status plants shall be compensated for through the acquisition, protection, and subsequent management of other existing occurrences. Before the implementation of compensation measures, the project’s applicant shall provide detailed information to the CDFW and lead agency on the quality of preserved habitat, location of the preserved occurrences, provisions for protecting and managing the areas, the responsible parties involved, and other pertinent information that demonstrates that the compensation population will be properly preserved and managed. A mitigation plan identifying appropriate mitigation ratios at a minimum ratio of 1:1 [one preserved acre for each impacted arce] to ensure no net loss of acreage shall be developed in consultation with the CDFW and approved by the City prior to the commencement of any activities that would impact Congdon’s tarplant or other species with potential to occur within the project area. A mitigation plan may include but is not limited to the following: the acquisition of off-site mitigation areas presently supporting the Congdon’s tarplant or other special- status species, purchase of credits in a mitigation bank that is approved to sell credits for special-status plants, or payment of in-lieu fees to a public agency or conservation organization (e.g., a local land trust) for the preservation and management of existing populations of special- status plants. City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program Page 9 11/9/2018 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Approval / Monitoring / Implementation Completion Date Initials Prior to issuance of grading, building or other development permit MM BIO-1.2: Burrowing Owl Avoidance, Exclusion and Required Measures Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for development activities involving ground disturbance, the project applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following: Mitigate for Loss of Burrowing Owl Habitat The majority of project site, with the exception of delineated wetlands, developed areas, and areas with tree cover (73.64 acres), has been determined to potentially provide habitat or foraging areas for burrowing owl. Therefore, the applicant shall implement compensatory mitigation for loss of owl habitat in accordance with the standards set forth in the Required Mitigation Plan section below. Additional measures below will avoid direct impacts to individuals that may occupy the site during construction and implementation of the project. Conduct a Burrowing Owl Survey Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct two pre-construction surveys for the Western burrowing owl on the project site. The first survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to ground- disturbing activities and the second survey within 48 hours of initial ground disturbance. The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the 2012 ▪ City of Dublin ▪ CA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program Page 10 11/9/2018 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Approval / Monitoring / Implementation Completion Date Initials CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the surveys determine owls are present, then the measures set forth below shall be followed. Implement Avoidance Measures If direct impacts to owls can be avoided, prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall implement the following avoidance measures during all phases of construction to reduce or eliminate potential impacts to California burrowing owls. ▪ A pre-construction survey shall be performed prior to start of ground disturbance activities. This survey will occur regardless of the time of year, as burrowing owls may use the project site during the non-nesting season. The survey shall be performed according to the standards set forth by the Staff Report for Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012). ▪ The project site should be managed to prevent burrowing owl from occupying the site prior to any project activities ▪ All suitable burrows should be closed by hand once it has been determined that the burrow is unoccupied. ▪ Maintenance of the property to ensure burrows are not rebuilt will be necessary throughout the year to preclude the presence of burrowing owl and suitable burrowing owl habitat. Maintenance should occur approximately every 8 weeks, and burrows should be inspected prior to closure to ensure no burrowing owl are present. The frequency of burrow closure may be adjusted based upon ground squirrel and burrow reestablishment progress. City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program Page 11 11/9/2018 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Approval / Monitoring / Implementation Completion Date Initials ▪ The debris within the project site should be removed. ▪ If discing is chosen as a preferred method for burrow maintenance, it is recommended that any sensitive biological resources (populations of rare plants, wetland boundaries and any active bird nests, etc.) be flagged by a qualified biologist and avoided. Conduct Burrow Exclusion If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible, prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant, in consultation with the CDFW, shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan as indicated and following the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Monitoring of the excluded owls shall be carried out as per the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2012 Staff Report. Required Mitigation Plan The project applicant shall consult with the CDFW and develop a detailed mitigation plan that shall include replacement of impacted habitat, number of burrows, and burrowing owl at a ratio approved by CDFW to ensure no net loss of species. The mitigation plan shall comply with the requirements set forth in Appendix A of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and the plan shall be reviewed and approved by CDFW and the City prior to the first ground-disturbing activities. Prior to issuance of grading, building or other MM BIO-1.3: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for development activities from February 1 to August 31, the applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development ▪ City of Dublin City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program Page 12 11/9/2018 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Approval / Monitoring / Implementation Completion Date Initials development permit Department that demonstrates compliance with the following: Pre-construction Breeding Bird Surveys No more than 14 days prior to initial ground disturbance and vegetation removal during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to perform pre-construction breeding bird surveys. If any nests are found, they shall be flagged and protected with a suitable buffer based on the species. Buffer distance may vary based on species and conditions, but is typically at least 50 feet, and up to 250 feet for raptors. As used in this measure, “suitable” means the distance a qualified biologist determines is necessary to ensure no disturbance to nesting. The buffer distance is measured as the straight-line distance between an active nest and the activity, taking both horizontal and vertical distance into account. This mitigation measure does not apply to ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities that occur outside of the nesting season (September 1 to January 31). Prior to issuance of grading, building or other development permit MM BIO-3.1 Wetland Mitigation Plan Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for development activities involving ground disturbance, the project applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following: The project applicant shall the acquire the appropriate applicable permit(s) (e.g. Section 404, Section 401, Porter-Cologne) from the respective regulating agency(s) (i.e. USACE and/or RWQCB). A wetland mitigation plan shall be prepared that will establish suitable compensatory mitigation based on the ▪ City of Dublin ▪ US Army Corps of Engineers ▪ Regional Water Quality Control Board City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program Page 13 11/9/2018 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Approval / Monitoring / Implementation Completion Date Initials concept of no net loss of wetland habitat values or acreages, to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies. The wetland mitigation plan shall include measures for avoidance, minimization and compensation for wetland impacts. Avoidance and minimization measures may include the designation of buffers around wetland features to be avoided or project design measures. Compensation measures shall include the preservation and/or creation of wetlands or other waters. The final mitigation ratio (the amount of wetlands and other water created or preserved compared to the amount impacted) shall be determined by the applicable resource agency(s) and result in no net loss of wetland habitat value or acreages. The wetland mitigation plan shall include the following: 1. Description of wetland types and their expected functions and values; 2. Performance standards and monitoring protocol to ensure the success of the mitigation wetlands over a period of time to be determined by the resource agencies; 3. Engineering plans showing the location, size and configuration of wetlands to be created or preserved; 4. An implementation schedule showing the construction or preservation of mitigation areas shall commence prior to or concurrently with the initiation of construction; and 5. A description of legal protection of the preserved wetlands (such as dedication of fee title, conservation easement and/or an endowment held by an approved conservation organization, government agency or mitigation bank). City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program Page 14 11/9/2018 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Approval / Monitoring / Implementation Completion Date Initials Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources During construction MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological Discovery During Construction If buried historic or archaeological resources are discovered during construction, operations shall stop within 50 feet of the find and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to evaluate the resource in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15064.5. The applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the resource does not qualify as a significant resource, then no further protection or study is necessary. If the resource does qualify as a significant resource then the impacts shall be avoided by project activities. If the resource cannot be avoided, adverse impacts to the resource shall be addressed. The archaeologist shall make recommendations concerning appropriate mitigation measures that shall be implemented to protect the resources, including but not limited to excavation and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction within the project area should be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria. ▪ City of Dublin During construction MM CR-2.1: Paleontological Resource Monitoring In the event a fossil(s) is discovered during construction for the project, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or delayed until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. ▪ City of Dublin City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program Page 15 11/9/2018 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Approval / Monitoring / Implementation Completion Date Initials The applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, they shall be avoided by project construction activities and recovered by a qualified paleontologist. Upon completion of the recovery, a paleontological assessment shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist to determine if further monitoring for paleontological resources is required. The assessment shall include (1) the results of any geotechnical investigation prepared for the project area, (2) specific details of the construction plans for the project area, (3) background research, and (4) limited subsurface investigation within the project area. If a high potential to encounter paleontological resources is confirmed, a monitoring plan of further project subsurface construction shall be prepared in conjunction with this assessment. After project subsurface construction has ended, a report documenting monitoring, methods, findings, and further recommendations regarding paleontological resources shall be prepared and submitted to the Director of Community Development. Geology and Soils Prior to issuance of building permit MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Recommendations The project applicant shall consult with a registered geotechnical engineer to prepare a design-level geotechnical investigation that incorporates the recommendations in the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration. The design- level geotechnical report shall address, but not be limited to, site preparation and grading, building foundations, and CBC seismic design parameters. A design-level geotechnical report shall be prepared and submitted in conjunction ▪ City of Dublin City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program Page 16 11/9/2018 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Approval / Monitoring / Implementation Completion Date Initials with Building Permit application(s) and reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin. Recommendations from the design-level geotechnical report shall be incorporated into the final project design and construction documents for each phase of the project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Prior to issuance of grading, building or any other development permit for Planning Area 3 MM HAZ- 1.1: Disposal of Deleterious Materials Prior to any ground disturbance on Planning Area 3 (APN 985-52-24), the project applicant shall retain a qualified hazardous materials contractor to properly dispose of the observed deleterious materials, and any others discovered during remediation. Additionally, the applicant shall close the abandoned Zone 7 water supply well in accordance with applicable regulatory agency requirements. ▪ City of Dublin ▪ Dublin San Ramon Services District Noise and Vibration Prior to issuance of grading, building or any other development permit MM N-1.1: Construction Noise Reduction To reduce the effects of construction noise, the City of Dublin shall ensure that the project applicants include the following on all construction contracts for the project: ▪ The project shall submit a Construction Noise Management Program that identifies measures proposed to minimize construction noise impacts on existing residents. ▪ All construction operations shall comply with local noise standards and be limited to normal daylight hours. All stationary equipment shall be adequately muffled and located away from sensitive receptors. The ▪ City of Dublin City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program Page 17 11/9/2018 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Approval / Monitoring / Implementation Completion Date Initials construction contractor shall limit all on-site noise-producing construction activities, including deliveries and warming up of equipment, to the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., daily. ▪ The construction contractor shall ensure that all internal combustion engine- driven equipment is equipped with mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. ▪ The construction contractor shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area. In addition, the project contractor shall place such stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site. ▪ The construction contractor shall prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. ▪ The construction contractor shall, to the maximum extent practical, locate on-site equipment staging areas so as to maximize the distance between construction- related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program Page 18 11/9/2018 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Approval / Monitoring / Implementation Completion Date Initials The construction contractor shall designate a noise disturbance coordinator who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the disturbance coordinator shall notify the City within 24 hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaints (starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem, as deemed acceptable by the City of Dublin Community Development Department. The construction contractor shall conspicuously post the contact name and telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator at the construction site. Prior to issuance of building permit for Planning Areas 2, 3 and 4 MM N-3.1: Noise Attenuation Prior to issuance of building permits for Planning Areas 2, 3, and 4, a detailed acoustical study based on architectural plans shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant and submitted to the Community Development Department to demonstrate that all residential units would meet the City’s 60 dBA exterior noise standard for all patios, balconies, and common outdoor living areas. In addition, the acoustical study shall demonstrate that interior noise levels at all residential units at the project site would meet the City’s 45 dBA threshold. This mitigation measure complies with the applicable sections of the California Building Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) and City Implementing Policy H. The necessary noise reduction may be achieved by implementing noise control measures at the receiver locations. Where closed windows are required to achieve the interior 45 dBA CNEL limit, project plans and specifications shall include ventilation as required by the California Building Code. The final grading and building plans shall incorporate the required noise barriers (patio enclosure, wall, berm, or combination ▪ City of Dublin City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program Page 19 11/9/2018 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Approval / Monitoring / Implementation Completion Date Initials wall/berm), and the property owner/developer shall install these barriers and enclosures. Transportation and Traffic Prior to issuance of building permit in Planning Area 1 or 2 MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design Features for the New Project Intersection on Dublin Boulevard. Prior to approval of the first building permit for development in Planning Area 1 or 2, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director that design features have been incorporated into the development plans that prohibit northbound and southbound left turn movements onto Dublin Boulevard at the new intersection during the weekday and weekend time periods (defined below); or alternative improvements have been incorporated that modify or eliminate the need for the prohibited turn movements. Time periods are defined as: ▪ Weekday = 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM ▪ Weekday = 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM ▪ Weekend Peak = 10:30 AM to 2:30 PM Should the City determine that queuing impacts extend beyond these time periods, the City may modify these time periods accordingly to ensure impacts remain less than significant. Design features could include: ▪ City of Dublin City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program Page 20 11/9/2018 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Approval / Monitoring / Implementation Completion Date Initials ▪ Moveable bollards, ▪ Gated lane control systems, ▪ Raised curbs, ▪ Temporary traffic control devices, ▪ Changeable message signs, ▪ Flashing signal heads, ▪ Modifying the ingress/egress circulation on Brannigan Street and/or Tassajara Road, and/or ▪ Other means as deemed acceptable by the Public Works Director. At any such time after full build-out and occupancy of the project, the applicant may submit additional traffic analysis to the City, that would be independently verified, demonstrating that the time periods may be adjusted or that the prohibited turning movements are no longer required, such that impacts are maintained at a less than significant level, as deemed acceptable by the Public Works Director. Prior to issuance of building permit MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements to El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of Pleasanton to pay the project’s proportionate fair share (2 percent) for improvements to the intersection of El Charro Road / Jack London Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the signal timing splits by adjusting the maximum green time for each movement to better match the ▪ City of Dublin ▪ City of Pleasanton City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program Page 21 11/9/2018 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Approval / Monitoring / Implementation Completion Date Initials vehicle demand for that particular movement. The primary change would be to increase the split for the eastbound left turn movement due to the high eastbound left turn traffic volumes. Prior to issuance of building permit MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Travel Demand Management (TDM) Program Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to the City of Dublin for review and approval. The project applicant shall be responsible for fully funding and implementing the TDM program. The TDM program shall be prepared by a qualified transportation consultant/ engineer in coordination with the project applicant and City staff. The TDM program may include but not be limited to the following measures: ▪ Implement a subsidy program that would provide BART tickets at no cost or subsidized rate to all employees. ▪ Provide a shuttle service between the project site and the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. ▪ Implement a Commuter Tax Benefit Program or equivalent, per Section 132(F) of federal tax code, where an employer can offer its employees a monthly subsidy for public transit. ▪ Join City Car Share or similar program as a "Biz Prime" member and pay for membership of a minimum of 5% employees. ▪ City of Dublin City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program Page 22 11/9/2018 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Approval / Monitoring / Implementation Completion Date Initials ▪ Provide bicycle parking facilities for 20% of car spaces, or a number approved by the City. ▪ Provide secured bicycle parking (lockers or cages) for employees. ▪ Partner with local businesses (e.g. Kaiser Medical Center) in the formation of a Transportation Management Association (TMA) ▪ Facilitate employer‐sponsored carpooling and ride‐matching programs. ▪ Provide preferential carpool parking. ▪ Implement a guaranteed ride home program. ▪ Provide an on‐site car share program. ▪ Encourage employee flexible work scheduling practices to avoid peak‐hour travel (flex time, staggered shifts, compressed work schedules, etc.). ▪ Co-sponsor a transportation fair once a year with At Dublin businesses. Invite Wheels, 511.org, and at least two other commute alternative service providers to attend and distribute commute alternative information. Provide refreshments to participants. ▪ Promote and distribute hard copy information quarterly to all employees regarding 511, Ridematch, Guaranteed Ride Home Program, Wheels/LAVTA, shuttles to regional transit, City CarShare program, and other relevant alternative transportation options. City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program Page 23 11/9/2018 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Approval / Monitoring / Implementation Completion Date Initials ▪ Distribute information quarterly regarding transportation alternatives by email to all employees. ▪ Provide a kiosk(s) with brochures, and similar items that provide information about the TDM program. Create a website with similar information. ▪ Appoint a Commute Coordinator to facilitate information dissemination. The project applicant shall be required to submit a yearly report on/or before September 30 detailing the current status of the TDM measures, summarizing the program’s effectiveness, identifying any changes to the TDM measures that occurred in the previous year, and identifying additional steps to be taken, if necessary, to reduce traffic impacts. Additional details regarding TDM monitoring shall be developed as part of the development of the TDM program. Prior to issuance of building permit MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall pay the project’s proportionate fair share (17%) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway. The improvements shall consist of extending the westbound left turn pocket by 55 feet from 190 feet to 245 feet. There is an existing raised median that can be modified to lengthen the turn pocket. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs. ▪ City of Dublin City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program Page 24 11/9/2018 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Approval / Monitoring / Implementation Completion Date Initials Prior to issuance of building permit MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s proportionate fair share (7 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the green time for the westbound left turn movement. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs. ▪ City of Dublin Prior to issuance of building permit MM TR-3.3: Existing + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s proportionate fair share (15 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the green time for the eastbound left turn movement. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs. ▪ City of Dublin Prior to issuance of building permit MM TR-3.4: Existing + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of Pleasanton to pay the project’s proportionate fair share (16 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps. The improvements shall consist of extending the southbound left turn pocket by 25 ▪ City of Dublin ▪ City of Pleasanton City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program Page 25 11/9/2018 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Approval / Monitoring / Implementation Completion Date Initials feet from 405 feet to 430 feet. There is an existing raised median that can be modified to lengthen the turn pocket. Prior to issuance of building permit MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project Driveway Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the entirety (100 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the green time for the northbound left turn movement. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay for the entirety of the mitigation costs. ▪ City of Dublin Prior to issuance of building permit MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Improvements Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the Tri- Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) to pay all applicable regional transportation impact fees related to freeway improvements. ▪ City of Dublin ▪ Tri-Valley Transportation Council Prior to issuance of building permit MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering Improvements Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay for the City of Dublin to work with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to review the ramp metering rates at the WB I-580 Tassajara Road diagonal on-ramp in the AM peak period. Increasing the ramp metering rate would reduce the vehicle queues on Tassajara Road. In addition, the project applicant shall pay for the City of Dublin to work with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to review the ramp metering rates at the EB I-580 El Charro Road loop on-ramp in the PM ▪ City of Dublin ▪ Caltrans City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program Page 26 11/9/2018 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Approval / Monitoring / Implementation Completion Date Initials peak period. Increasing the ramp metering rate would reduce the vehicle queues on El Charro Road. Prior to issuance of building permit MM TR-5.1: Near-Term + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of Pleasanton to pay the project’s proportionate fair share (8 percent) for improvements to the intersection of Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the coordination of the traffic signals along Santa Rita Road by increasing the cycle length from 105 seconds to 115 seconds. ▪ City of Dublin ▪ City of Pleasanton Prior to issuance of building permit MM TR-6.1: Near-Term + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s proportionate fair share (15%) of improvements to the intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the cycle length in the AM peak hour to be 155 seconds and adjusting the green time for the northbound left turn movement in the PM Peak hour. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs. ▪ City of Dublin Prior to issuance of building permit MM TR-6.2: Near-Term + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s proportionate fair share (6 percent) of improvements to the ▪ City of Dublin City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program Page 27 11/9/2018 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Approval / Monitoring / Implementation Completion Date Initials intersection of Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the green time for the eastbound left turn movement. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs. Prior to issuance of building permit MM TR-6.3: Near-term + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project Driveway Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the entirety (100 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the cycle length at this intersection from 110 seconds to 120 seconds. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay for the entirety of the mitigation costs. ▪ City of Dublin Prior to issuance of building permit MM TR-7.1: Near-Term + Project Ramp Metering Improvements Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay for the City of Dublin to work with Caltrans to review the ramp metering rates at the EB I-580 Hacienda Drive loop on-ramp in the PM peak period. Increasing the ramp metering rate would reduce the vehicle queues on Hacienda Drive. ▪ City of Dublin Prior to issuance of building permit MM TR-8.1: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s proportionate fair share (10 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the signal timing splits. Because this improvement project ▪ City of Dublin City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program Page 28 11/9/2018 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Approval / Monitoring / Implementation Completion Date Initials is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs. Prior to issuance of building permit MM TR-8.2: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Brannigan Street / Dublin Boulevard Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s proportionate fair share (8 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Brannigan Street / Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adding a second northbound left turn lane of equal length. The south leg of this intersection will likely need to be widened to fit the additional northbound left turn lane. Since the western side of Brannigan Street fronts the project, it is recommended that this improvement be installed as part of the project to prevent future widening after the project has been constructed. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs. ▪ City of Dublin Prior to issuance of building permit MM TR-8.3: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Fallon Road / Dublin Boulevard Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s proportionate fair share (2 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Fallon Road / Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of installing a westbound right turn overlap phase. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs. ▪ City of Dublin City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program Page 29 11/9/2018 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Approval / Monitoring / Implementation Completion Date Initials Prior to issuance of building permit MM TR-8.4: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Keegan Street Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s proportionate fair share (5 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Dublin Boulevard / Keegan Street. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the cycle length to 150 seconds. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs. ▪ City of Dublin Prior to issuance of building permit MM TR-8.5: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Lockhart Street Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s proportionate fair share (4 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Dublin Boulevard / Lockhart Street. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the cycle length to 150 seconds. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs. ▪ City of Dublin Prior to issuance of building permit MM TR-8.6: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of Pleasanton to pay the project’s proportionate fair share (8 percent) for improvements to the intersection of Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the coordination of the traffic ▪ City of Dublin ▪ City of Pleasanton City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program Page 30 11/9/2018 Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Approval / Monitoring / Implementation Completion Date Initials signals along Santa Rita Road by increasing the cycle length from 105 seconds to 145 seconds. Prior to issuance of building permit MM TR-9.1: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Grafton Street Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s proportionate fair share (5 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Dublin Boulevard / Grafton Street. The improvements shall consist of extending the eastbound left turn pocket by 85 feet from 220 feet to 305 feet. There is an existing raised median that can be modified to lengthen the turn pocket. The improvements shall also consist of extending the westbound left turn pocket by 140 feet from 230 feet to 305 feet. There is an existing raised median that can be modified to lengthen the turn pocket. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs. ▪ City of Dublin 1 Amy Million From:Kumar K <jkiran2020@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 26, 2020 11:28 PM To:Amy Million Subject:NO to 'At Dublin project' Dear Ma'am,   This is regarding At Dublin project, which is on a 76.9-acre vacant site primarily bound by Tassajara Road, Interstate 580, Brannigan Street and Gleason Drive.    I am a home owner in Tassajara Meadows community(located near Gleasan drive and Tassajara Rd). Just to make a right turn on Tassajara and pass through the traffic in the morning it takes times for me while dropping my kid at school. The congestion grows as we approach the exit to 580. With the addition of 566 more homes, it is going to be a real nightmare in the traffic.    So I request you to consider my voice and preference for this project as 'NO' and help with better planning of East Dublin.    Thank you so much reading.    Regards,  Kiran Kumar J  Tassajara Meadows  Dublin, CA    1 Amy Million From:dung lay <nadia.phung@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 1, 2020 9:26 PM To:Amy Million Subject:No to more homes in Dublin Hi,     My name is Dung Lay and I’m a resident of Dublin. I will not be able to attend the meeting this Tuesday and I’m emailing  you to oppose building more homes on the 3 lots near Tassajara/Dublin Blvd. Our schools are already crowded enough  and the traffic on our streets have gotten worse which leads to more reckless driving and accidents because parents are  trying to get their kids to school. Please vote No on building more new homes.    Thanks,  Dung Lay     Sent from my iPhone  1 Amy Million From:Connie M <conzmoon@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, March 2, 2020 11:36 PM To:Amy Million Subject:Tassajara Road, Interstate 580, Brannigan Street and Gleason Drive Hello  Please vote NO on the new project. There are just too much development going on and not enough infrastructure to  meet those new demands. I’m sad to realize how bustling Dublin has become in only 2 years of living here.   Please stop all the developments. Let’s see some land and nature.  Thank you  1 Amy Million From:Alyssa Woo <alyssacwoo@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 9, 2020 6:33 PM To:City Council Cc:Amy Million Subject:Project: At Dublin - PLPA-2017-00061 Hello Dublin City Council,    My name is Alyssa Woo‐Deaguero, and my husband and I have enjoyed living here and have been residents since  2010.  Our condo is located on Clarinbridge Cir., and will be immediately affected by this project.  Unfortunately, my  husband and I will not be available to attend the actual meeting in person.  I would like to provide my comments  regarding this project.      We are very concerned about the rampant building of residential units around Dublin.  We feel that the city is now  incredibly overpopulated and is not as peaceful as it used to be.  We'd really prefer to see more parks or retail created  with this plot of land.  I recall a few years ago there was a project called the "Promenade" that did not come to  light.  We'd prefer something like the Promenade or more park space developed on this land.      The site of the proposed 2nd high school in Dublin is also supposed to be located on the other side of Clarinbridge Cir.,  and we already fear how terribly congested it will be.  We are incredibly concerned about how our quality of life will be  reduced by being sandwiched between more housing/congestion on one side and a high school on the other side. Using  the space for retail and parks would be a perfect compliment to the high school, so that the students will have a place to  go and hang out after school (book stores, coffee shops, etc.) and stay out of trouble.  We do not need more housing in  this plot of land.    The traffic is also an issue as it has taken us over 35 minutes to drive from one side of the city to the other.  If Dublin  Blvd is eventually expanded through Livermore to relieve congestion on 580, I fear Dublin Blvd will be incredibly  congested at all times of the day, especially if Dublin continues to approve housing projects and have a full functioning  high school using Dublin Blvd.    In summary, we would like it be known that more housing in this plot of land is definitely not our preferred choice and  we are directly affected by it in multiple ways.  We'd really prefer the land be used for retail or open park space.      Thank you for your consideration.  Alyssa Woo‐Deaguero  925‐548‐4675