Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 GP & Econ Dev Element Attch 3-6DRAFT DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, March 26, 2013 CALL TO ORDER /ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 26, 2013, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair O'Keefe called the meeting to order at 7:00:20 P Present: Chair O'Keefe; Vice Chair Bhuthimethee; Commissioners Goel, Kohli and Do; Chris Foss, Assistant City Manager; Linda Smith, Economic Development Director; Luke Sims, Community Development Director; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner, Obaid Khan, Sr. Civil Engineer; Ananthan Kanagasundaram, Associate Civil Engineer; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. /G1OTT4MI ■ReMI MI- ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA — NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Bhuthimethee and seconded by Cm. Kohli, on a vote of 5 -0, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the March 12, 2013 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR.— NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — 8.1 PLPA- 2012 - 000069 Sri Sai Temple Conditional Use Permit for a Community Facility (Place of Worship) for a meditation center. Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, stated that the Applicant had requested a Conditional Use Permit for a Community Facility; however, they are still in negotiations with the property owner and have requested that the project be continued to a date uncertain. Chair O'Keefe opened the public hearing and, seeing no one to comment, closed the public hearing. On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 5 -0, the Planning Commission unanimously continued the item to a date uncertain. Wf,,quh,r.IIfeehI'Iq 28 DRAFT DRAFT 8.2 PLPA- 2012 -00060 Kingsmill Group /Diamond Heights Investments, Site Development Review for the Kingsmill Mixed -Use Retail /Residential project on two parcels at the former Crown Chevrolet site in Downtown Dublin. Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. R. C. Alley, Architects Orange, on behalf of the Applicant, spoke regarding the project and the changes that were made in response to comments received at the Study Session. He presented the changes made to the elevations, the parking garage and the materials and colors palette. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what was originally at the pedestrian entrance at the Porte cochere to the project. Mr. Alley answered that there was a gate on the original drawings but it was removed because he felt that it was not very inviting. Mr. Alley discussed the changes to the parking structure. He stated that the comments at the Study Session were that the parking structure looked too much like a parking structure. He stated that they revised it to make it consistent with the rest of the building, hiding the ramps, and making the openings consistent with the residential openings. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked how the monuments were determined. Mr. Alley responded that they do not have the exact details of the monuments but the locations have been determined. Cm. Kohli asked if the project could be a site for public art. Mr. Alley answered yes. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that, in creating a more traditional look, the project lost some of the articulation on the cornices and completely lost the corbels. She asked if those elements could be replaced. Mr. Alley responded that he specifically removed them because he felt that it competed with the tower at the corner. He stated that he would be willing to add something back but did not want the building to become over - animated. Cm. Do asked about the traffic lanes on Golden Gate and how they will be set up. Ms. Bascom responded that the intersection of Golden Gate and Dublin Blvd. will have one right -turn lane, one through lane and 2 left turn lanes. She stated that the Golden Gate Drive enhancements include on- street bike lanes. She discussed the lanes that will be provided for the project. Cm. Do asked if there was only one bike lane on Golden Gate. Ms. Bascom responded that there will be one on each side of Golden Gate. DRAFT DRAFT Chair O'Keefe asked about the parking study and how the parking ratio was determined for the Eden project. He asked if there was also an analysis done to add handicapped parking in excess of what is required. Ms. Bascom deferred to the Eden Housing representatives to answer whether there is any additional handicapped parking. She stated that the handicapped parking at the project is in excess of the requirement but was unsure as to how much. She stated that parking was examined as part of the site specific analysis. Woody Karp, Eden Housing, stated that there is no additional handicapped parking; however, because of the layout of the garage, there are extra wide spaces at the corners on every level so that a larger vehicle would be able to use those parking stalls. He added that they will be assigning parking spaces as well. Chair O'Keefe asked how many additional parking spaces are on each level. He also asked if there will be extra sound proofing for the residential units located above the entry to the parking garage on Dublin Blvd. Mr. Alley answered that the parking garage has an 11 inch concrete slab floor that should not require any additional sound - proofing. He stated that, because the Eden project is small, the handicapped requirement is approximately 3 spaces. He stated that there are enhanced sized stalls on every level and a significant amount of additional stalls that are larger than the standard size. These larger sized stalls are not officially "accessible" spaces, but could accommodate a larger vehicle with a lift. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned that the pool area would not get enough sunlight with the 5 story buildings surrounding it. Mr. Alley responded that, when reviewing projects like this, he looks at the courtyard size to make sure that there will be an appropriate amount of light. He stated that this project has a large courtyard and the units around the pool are only 4 stories so the light will be ample. Chair O'Keefe complemented the Applicant on the changes to the Kingsmill project parking garage. He felt that the articulation and massing are a big improvement. He stated that one of the most repeated comments from the Study Session was that they wanted to create a sense of place and something that is unique to Dublin. He asked if he had any thoughts about how to create a project that would be unique to Dublin. Mr. Alley responded that he did a lot of research on what is historical and authentic to Dublin. He felt that he knew what that was (two -story, pitch roofed buildings) but was not able to find any good references. He stated that they decided to create the authenticity through the placement of public art which could show historic references. He has no details on the public art yet, but felt it would be a good way to bring the history of Dublin to the project. Ms. Bascom stated that Architects Orange reviewed the building forms and what a traditional downtown building should look like, i.e., a smaller scale and the repetition of some of the elements. She felt that they revised the Dublin Blvd. elevation so that it wraps around the corner and carries down Golden Gate taking some of the side forms of a more contemporary nature and translating them to a more traditional downtown /residential format. Wf,Ph,r.IIfeehI'Iq 30 DRAFT DRAFT Chair O'Keefe asked to see the slide of the corner element on Dublin Blvd. He felt that Mr. Alley had made significant improvements to the base of the building on Dublin Blvd. and thanked him for that. He stated that the City has received compliments on the shamrocks on the medians and suggested placing an etched shamrock in the middle square of the glass windows on the corner. Mr. Alley was concerned that it would appear to be an advertising sign. He felt he understood what Chair O'Keefe wanted and suggested that the Shamrock design could be used in the courtyard. Chair O'Keefe stated that Mayor Sbranti had suggested using brick or pavers on St. Patrick Way to slow down cars exiting the freeway from the 1 -680 off -ramp. He asked for Mr. Alley's thoughts. Ms. Bascom mentioned that they reviewed a variety of traffic calming devices after the Study Session to determine what could be done to create a tighter feel for the area. She felt that when there are open spaces, cars tend to travel faster but once there are more buildings and active uses people tend to slow down. She was concerned with the safety of installing pavers where they could be mistaken for a crosswalk in an area with many driveways thus creating an unsafe situation. She stated that the introduction of the 4 story buildings and the entry monuments would add a more closed -in feel. She stated that, after speaking with the City's Traffic Engineer, the hope would be to reassess traffic calming tools after the project and all the improvements have been installed. Chair O'Keefe asked what the distance is between the entrance to the parking garage and the corner of St. Patrick Way and Amador Plaza Road. Ms. Bascom was unsure of the distance. Cm. Bhuthimethee suggested incorporating public art into the entry monuments with something memorable. She mentioned a piece of public art in Sausalito that she felt was memorable. Cm. Kohli felt that the Eden project looked blander than the Kingsmill project and was concerned that the veterans moving into the Eden project would feel that they are lesser than those living at the Kingsmill project. He asked why the Applicant made the decision to create two distinct projects and not make them similar so that the project feels more like a community. Mr. Alley felt there are a lot of similarities between the two projects. He stated that the slide Cm. Kohli is referring to shows the Eden project parking structure which has a simpler look. He asked Cm. Kohli to look beyond the parking structure where articulation is the same in both the projects. He also stated that he enhanced the parking structure for the Eden project as well as the Kingsmill project. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that they did a great job of enhancing the parking structure for the Kingsmill project and suggested doing something similar for the Eden project parking structure. Mr. Alley stated that the Eden garage is a much smaller parking structure and naturally ventilated as opposed to the Kingsmill garage which is mechanically ventilated. He stated that they needed to keep portions of the garage open. He added that the ramps are not seen at all, and the metal screens will have plant material to soften the look. He suggested enclosing the DRAFT DRAFT horizontal elements with a vertical element to make the openings similar to the window openings but would need to do a calculation on the parking structure to determine if it is possible. Cm. Bhuthimethee suggested using a green screen to give it a little more softness. Cm. Kohli agreed and asked why the color scheme was chosen and why was it meant to be distinct. Mr. Alley answered that they meant for the projects to be distinct but work together. He felt that the Eden project has a simpler color palette because it is a residential project with no retail fronting Dublin Blvd. Cm. Kohli felt that some of the other elements, such as the awnings, were also simpler. Mr. Alley responded that the project is simpler. Ms. Bascom felt that the Eden project is a more traditional design with a lot of elements that are complementary to the Kingsmill project, but definitely a different look. She felt that the projects will complement each other without matching too much. Cm. Kohli understood but was concerned that the residents would feel slighted when comparing the projects. Mr. Alley disagreed and felt the Eden project was well articulated. Linda Mandolini, Eden Housing, stated that the colors on the slides do not show the colors very well and that the actual color pallet has a much richer feel. She stated that they want the projects to be different, each with its own identity and felt it helps not to look the same from the urban planning perspective. She stated that Eden Housing spent a lot of time on the colors so that they will work for the project and complement the Kingsmill project. She stated they want the project to look good now and in the future. She stated she was less concerned with looking the same and more concerned that the project looks really good and that people feel good about living there. Cm. Kohli wanted to ensure that the residents felt they are living somewhere that they love and they feel that they are getting what the other community is. Ms. Mandolini agreed, and suggested that they change the garage elevation to make it look less like a garage. She felt that the elevation Cm. Kohli was referring to makes the project look blander and did not show what the project would eventually look like with street trees, etc. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed and stated that they are all excited about the veteran's housing project and that no one wants veterans and their families to feel like 2nd class citizens. She asked if the Eden project would have the same types of window treatments as the Kingsmill. Ms. Bascom responded that there are some of the same awnings and railing elements in both projects. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt there are more on the Golden Gate side. DRAFT DRAFT Ms. Bascom responded that they are repeated in greater density on Golden Gate. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked Cm. Kohli if he felt it would help the elevation of the Eden project to have the awnings on St. Patrick Way as well. Cm. Kohli answered yes. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked Mr. Alley to speak about how the project is authentic to Dublin. Mr. Alley felt that is a hard question to answer. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she showed the plans to various residents and visitors and asked them what they thought about the building. She said that most people thought the project was good but nobody said it was really great. They mentioned that it looked like other projects that have been built in the Bay Area. Mr. Alley agreed that there are a lot of projects being built in Northern California and this project is similar to projects in a more traditional environment but meets the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) requirements. He felt that the City wanted a project that has a downtown feel in terms of massing, articulation and character and felt that this project meets that. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that the project has met the letter of the specific plan but has fallen short of the vision for the downtown. She referred to Item 8.3 on the Agenda "Revisions to the Dublin General Plan and a New Economic Development Element' which speaks to a "sense of arrival" and felt that this project is a gateway on Dublin Blvd., the west Dublin /Pleasanton BART station and the 1 -680 off -ramp. She discussed the various items in the General Plan that speak to landmarks and ways to create a more memorable identity for Dublin with corner elements, etc. She felt the corner of Dublin Blvd. and Golden Gate could be more of a landmark corner and asked if there was a way to detail the corner in a more memorable way to create a landmark. Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, responded that her point is well taken and felt that the overall goal the project is attempting to create is a sense of identity and place for the downtown. He felt that the project is very unique and is as good as or better than what will be seen in any competing cities. He felt that this project is the first step in creating that sense of place and agreed that this corner is a gateway to the BART Station. He felt that the corner plaza addresses the public realm and the public art will help to create that sense of place. He also felt that the project has all the concepts that work together to create that sense of place for the downtown and will create something unique for the Tri- Valley area. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed with Mr. Baker. She felt that the building is precedent setting and that this is Dublin's opportunity to define their downtown. Kit Faubion, City Attorney, felt that the Planning Commission was deliberating and suggested that they continue with the public hearing and come back to the discussion after the public hearing was closed. Cm. Do asked how the colors of the adjacent Essex project blend with this project. Mr. Alley answered that the colors for the Essex project are more earth tones which will work well with their project. DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Kohli mentioned that, during the Study Session, Vm. Biddle asked about condo conversion and the Applicant had stated that was not their plan. He asked why the Applicant chose not to do that and will there be an opportunity in the future to change. He also asked Staff what the currant occupancy rate is for apartments in Dublin and how many units are in the Essex project. Ms. Bascom answered that they did not have the current occupancy rate information and the Essex project will have 309 units. Keith Fichtner, Kingsmill Group, thanked the Planning Commission and felt the architect has done a great job of addressing the concerns expressed at the Study Session. He mentioned Cm. Bhuthimethee's concern about the project being a focal point for Dublin. He felt that this project is the focal point for his company, and very important to him. He stated that he is very proud of the project and that it will be an important building in the downtown. In response to Cm. Kohli's question regarding condo conversion there have been no discussions at this point in making the project a condo site. He felt that it could be in the future. Cm. Kohli stated that he was under the impression that the project could not be converted in the future. Mr. Fichtner responded that there is a Staff process and deferred to Ms. Bascom to answer the question. Ms. Bascom responded that the project would need to comply with the City's Condo Conversion Ordinance. She continued that there are building code issues that should be contemplated now and the Development Agreement (DA) refers to apartments not condos so that would need to be amended, but it would be the Applicant's choice as the City does not distinguish between apartments and condominiums in the Specific Plan. Mr. Fichtner stated that they would take the public art issue just as seriously as the changes that were requested of the project. He stated that this subject is very important to him and takes it very seriously and agreed to work with Staff to ensure that the public art pieces would be appropriate for the project. He stated that, if the project is approved tonight, he would work with Staff and Eden Housing to complete the documentation for the affordable component. He urged the Planning Commission to approve the project and thanked Staff. Chair O'Keefe closed the public hearing. Chair O'Keefe agreed with Cm. Bhuthimethee regarding the DDSP which states: "designing buildings near major street intersections as signature buildings." He felt that the project was not a signature for Dublin. He mentioned that, at the recent meeting with the City Council, they indicated that they wanted a WOW factor. He felt that this is a main artery and this project does not have the WOW factor. He stated that there have been some improvements, but he is still concerned with the look and feel of Dublin Blvd. as the main thoroughfare of Dublin. He felt that they did a good job at the base but the project still leaves a lot of plaster on the top half of the building. Cm. Do stated that she supports the idea of the plaza and can see it as a gathering place for downtown. She felt it is a great project with BART just down the street which invites people Wf,,quh,r.11feeh1'1q 34 DRAFT DRAFT from other areas to come to Dublin. She felt that the project creates a neighborhood. She felt that this is a great project with great potential. Cm. Goel felt it is a good project with the veterans and affordable housing but is not as passionate about the WOW element. He stated that he liked the first rendering with the parapets which added some depth and attitude and distinguished itself from the BART structure. He liked the accents on the lower half of the building but felt the upper half is plain. He felt that could be the architect's vision, but asked if there could be a compromise. He asked how long the Eden project will be affordable housing and if there is a time in the future that would change. He asked if it is written in document that the affordable housing component will stay that way. Ms. Bascom answered that the DA for the project requires that the affordable component remain affordable for 55 years. Cm. Goel was concerned with parking for the project and the reduction in parking spaces which is based on the current projected use. He was concerned that if the use changes or the City rezones the property then the City has missed the opportunity for parking that should have been required at this location. He asked for an explanation of the parking analysis that recommended the parking reduction based on the affordable housing component. Ms. Bascom answered that the DA requires that the Eden project be an affordable project for 55 years. She felt that the parking requirements will be vastly different in 55 years than they are today. She stated that the Applicant does not have the option to do anything else with this site but an affordable housing project. She stated that the parking analysis that was done was for not just an affordable housing project but an affordable housing project serving a special needs population. She stated that the sizes and number of the units as well as other studies on affordable housing projects for people with special needs in a transit oriented district were taken into consideration during the analysis that was done to determine the actual parking needs for the projects. Cm. Goel asked if it is specifically written that the project is only for special needs. Ms. Bascom responded that the DA /Community Benefit Agreement does not address parking. She stated that it addresses the duration that the project will be an affordable housing project; the parking analysis was done separately. She clarified for the Planning Commission that they are not being asked to approve a reduction in parking with this project. She stated that there will be refinements that will be made from the SDR approval through the construction documents. She added that there is a Condition of Approval that a parking reduction will need to be considered at a later date by the Zoning Administrator. She stated that the information was included in the project plans and the application so that it is clear that there will be a parking reduction request at a later date, but the Planning Commission does not need to make the findings for that at this time. Cm. Goel felt that part of making the findings is accepting the parking garage as it is which makes the assumption that the Planning Commission is accepting the reduction in parking. He felt that if the project was approved the Planning Commission is accepting an irreversible decision and he was not in support of that. Chair O'Keefe asked if his question regarding the parking analysis was answered. Wf,,quh,r.IIfeehI'Iq 35 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Goel answered yes and no and felt what he is hearing from Staff is that this it is not the Planning Commission's decision at this time but he wanted it noted that he is concerned as the overall plan makes the assumption that the Planning Commission is accepting the parking reduction. Chair O'Keefe reopened the public hearing. Ms. Mandolini responded that Eden Housing feels that parking is really important. She stated that they study parking ratios for all of their developments. She stated that they took into consideration: number of units, size, type of residents and then review the parking reduction based on those issues, but also based on their proximity to public transit. She stated that their residents use public transit because they can't afford not to. She stated that the project is regulated by the State as well as the City and will be restricted for 55 years by at least 3 entities. Chair O'Keefe closed the public hearing. Cm. Goel appreciated the bike parking in relation to Site B being acknowledged. He stated that the Community Benefit Agreement identifies that Site B will have 76 units, but the Staff Report indicates 72 units and asked for Staff to explain. Linda Smith, Economic Development Director, answered that when the project was first envisioned they reviewed the unit sizes and made some adjustments because they wanted to reconfigure the internal footprint of the spaces which gave them 4 units of flexibility. Cm. Goel pointed out that some information regarding acreage and units in the attached Resolution is not consistent that are what is being reviewed. Ms. Smith asked if his concern was that the Community Benefit Agreement is not consistent with the Resolution, meaning the Agreement was more generous than the Resolution. Cm. Goel answered that the attached SDR Resolution indicates 72 residential units in the heading but 76 in the body of the Resolution. He also pointed out the total number of residential dwelling units in the project is listed as 314 in the heading and 390 in the body. Ms. Bascom stated those were typographical errors and will be revised. Cm. Goel asked about the phasing of the project as stated in the Community Benefit Agreement. Ms. Smith responded that the phasing relates to the development pool allocation. The Applicant has a two year period of time from the date of the signing of the Community Benefit Agreement to pull building permits in order to move forward and allocate the units to the Applicant. Cm. Goel asked if the phasing had anything to do with the intent to construct. Ms. Smith answered that the City Council's direction to Staff for the implementation of the development pool concept was a two year window and the Applicant elected to start the clock at the signing of the DA instead of an SDR approval. Therefore, their window of time started in January 2013 so they have two years from January 2013 in which to pull building permits for the project in order to obtain the units from the City's development pool. Wf,,qu ,r .W,'ee hI'Iq 3h DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Goel asked if there will be any time restriction for on- street parking on St. Patrick Way and Golden Gate to eliminate BART parking which could also impact the retail businesses. Ms. Bascom responded that the City is installing the streetscape improvements on Golden Gate and the Applicant will install the streetscape improvements on St. Patrick Way. She stated that there will be on- street parking on both of those streets that will be available on a first -come, first - serve basis and at this point the City is not intending to do time restricted parking, but the City's traffic engineer will monitor the situation closely. Mr. Baker mentioned that the commercial portion of the project is parked to the City's parking code requirements, as would a shopping center, and they don't count street parking towards the project's parking requirements. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if this project is the kind of image that the City wants to project in this area because it will be a gateway on 3 fronts and will be the image that will be taken away. She wanted to ensure that the City gets it right the first time. She also mentioned that she likes that the developer is local. Cm. Do felt that this project fits in the area, likes the consistency of the project and felt it would bring the area together. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that the Applicant did a good job of incorporating the materials of the surrounding buildings and did a good job on the ground floor. She stated that she likes that there will be retail along Dublin Blvd. She asked how this project is different than any other Bay Area city. She asked, if this will be the new chapter in the City's history, how will we want start that chapter. Cm. Kohli felt the Applicant did a good job of taking into account the comments from the Study Session and incorporating them into the project and clearly showing the revisions in their presentation. He understood about the WOW factor and felt the Applicant could have done more such as submitting five different options for review. He understood it was challenging to receive comments but not have clear direction. He cautioned that they should not focus on being too different as that could be a problem. Cm. Kohli stated that he brought up the subject of condo conversion because he felt that it is important to encourage more owner - occupied development because he believes that if you own your property you are more invested in the City. He urged the Applicant to consider the possibility of converting to condominiums. Chair O'Keefe felt that both the City Council and the Planning Commission think this is a good project. It accomplishes multiple City goals by providing affordable housing and veteran housing. He suggested discussing Cm. Bhuthimethee's concerns regarding the project's compliance with the DDSP and the point about designing a signature building near major intersections. He felt "signature" is a subjective term. He asked the Commission to take a minute and determine if they can make the findings. He stated that there are 3 options; 1) approve the project as is; 2) approve with modifications; or 3) deny the project. Mr. Baker agreed and stated that the last option is to continue the project. DRAFT DRAFT Chair O'Keefe asked if any of the Commissioners wanted to add any conditions to the project. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that if they approve the project with conditions it will not come back to the Planning Commission but will continue along the process. Cm. Goel stated that this is the second time the Commission has seen the project and asked how many times they need to see the project and at what point is a little input too much. He also asked how many signature buildings the City wants or how many signature buildings does the City need for an overall signature. He stated that he is ready to make a decision now. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked Cm. Goel how many signature buildings he thought were in Dublin now. Cm. Goel responded that the City must start somewhere. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed. Cm. Kohli asked if the Commission can include a condition regarding condo conversion. Mr. Baker answered that condo conversion is an ownership issue and the Commission cannot make that a requirement. It's an option available to apply for a condo map now or they can apply for it later. Cm. Kohli asked what building codes would need to be met in order to do a condo conversion. Mr. Baker answered that there are certain building codes that must be met so the Applicant would have to decide if they want to build the project to those requirements now for a future conversion. Ms. Faubion responded that in order to convert to condos the project would need to meet the Condominium Conversion Ordinance, building code requirements and a tentative map must be approved. She agreed with Staff's advice that the City cannot condition the project for condo conversion. Chair O'Keefe suggested taking a straw vote to decide whether to approve the project, approve it conditionally or deny it. He felt that the Planning Commission agreed that they wanted to see a more enhanced upper portion of the Dublin Blvd. elevation. He also felt that they did not want to wait to address the pavers or the streetscape on St. Patrick Way. He stated that he would be in support of conditionally approving the project if those two items can be taken care of by the Applicant. Cm. Goel asked if the pavers on St. Patrick Way would create a sound issue and even though it may create traffic calming effects, is that advisable in this area. Mr. Baker responded that the primary issue is safety. He felt that the placement of the pavers could be mistaken for a crosswalk and Staff feels strongly that St. Patrick Way would not be an appropriate location due to the driveways, etc. He felt that Staff understands the Commission's concern but they would need to analyze the issue and determine if there is an issue that needs to be addressed and what the appropriate action would be. If this is a concern for the Planning DRAFT DRAFT Commission, Staff's recommendation would be that they condition the project to have Staff work with the Applicant to analyze the issue and determine the best way to address their concern. Cm. Goel agreed if the pavers are a 10 or 12 foot wide segment across St. Patrick Way that could be a safety concern. He asked if a different impact could be created with a different type of road treatment. He felt that the Planning Commission was suggesting some other type of road treatment. Obaid Khan, Sr. Civil Engineer (Traffic), Public Works, stated noise was a concern in other jurisdictions. He mentioned "rumble strips" which are sometimes used to slow down motorist, but he would not use them in a residential district. He stated that there has been no specific study that showed that there is actually speeding in that location. He stated that all the studies they reviewed were related to circulation and volumes and how many cars enter that area during peak times. He stated that, during the most congested times, there are 100 cars making a right turn off the freeway on to Amador Plaza Road to access Dublin Blvd. He stated that currently St. Patrick Way has no trees or landscaping, no pedestrians on the sidewalk, and no parking on the street. He felt that the on- street parking and the striping change will give a visual cue to motorists that the street is narrowing and they should slow down. He stated that traffic calming includes physical, horizontal, and vertical variation and this project will achieve all of those. He added that Public Works will definitely review parking if it becomes an issue and could implement time limited parking in the area. Chair O'Keefe stated that he does not want to put any type of elevations or bumps on the street, only a visual cue that indicates that they are entering a residential area. Cm. Goel felt that if the surface is changed there will be a transition, either visual or audible. He felt that the Planning Commission should direct Staff that a traffic calming feature should be included in the project. He felt that the on- street parking would create some of the traffic calming features. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that a visual cue would be appropriate because the goal is to slow the drivers as they enter the project. Cm. Kohli suggested adding a speed limit sign. Cm. Goel felt that the Commission was not thinking about the residents in the location. He felt that curb and visual appeal as well as traffic movement and volume should be taken into consideration when drafting the condition and it should be flexible. Cm. Do stated that there is a traffic signal at the off -ramp of 1 -680 and suggested changing the timing to moderate the traffic flow onto St. Patrick Way. Cm. Goel responded that there are limitations about restricting the flow of traffic coming off 1 -680 and the intersection is a CalTrans operated intersection. He asked Mr. Khan for his opinion. Mr. Khan responded that this project may increase the traffic on St. Patrick Way and restated that they don't have any specific data that shows that people are speeding on the street. He stated that when making changes to any traffic signal off -ramp the City must work with CalTrans to avoid back -up onto the freeway which is a bigger safety concern because of the speed of the Wf,,quh,r.IIfeehI'Iq 39 DRAFT DRAFT traffic. He stated that he would review the signal timing but also indicated that the Public Works department always reviews, as part of the project, signal timing, sidewalks, and crosswalks. Cm. Kohli agreed with Cm. Goel that the condition should be flexible and let the experts determine the best solution. Chair O'Keefe asked if the Commission wanted to take a straw vote regarding the condition that would indicate that there should be traffic calming with no direction as far as the length, amount of paving, or the materials but there should be some type of traffic calming. Cm. Goel felt that the condition should require that a traffic calming element be analyzed by Staff. Cm. Bhuthimethee mentioned that the intersection at 1 -680 and Amador Plaza Road /St. Patrick Way has been a concern for the Commission and that they had denied a project based on that concern. Since CalTrans controls that intersection, she felt that if we can't control the intersection then she suggested creating a gateway there as a visual cue that indicates they have entered a residential /downtown area and maybe special paving on the street would also be an additional cue. She felt that it would be something that could make the transition into the downtown safer. Cm. Kohli felt that the Planning Commission was making a statement by saying that they want traffic calming in the area. He felt that they should allow Staff to work with the experts to determine what is best. Chair O'Keefe felt that traffic calming is also an aesthetic part of the project and felt strongly that there should be a traffic calming element at the beginning of the project. He suggested a straw vote to determine consensus. Cm. Bhuthimethee supported traffic calming and felt it is a good way to tie the buildings together and create an attractive streetscape. Cm. Kohli supported adding a general condition that will allow Staff to look at options for streetscape and traffic calming. Chair O'Keefe stated that he definitely wants to add a condition that requires a streetscape element with traffic calming, allowing the Applicant and Staff to determine what it will be, not just to review it. Mr. Baker stated that there is no evidence that there is a traffic issue at this location. He felt the professionals can evaluate if there is an issue and determine the best way to address it; therefore, keeping a broad condition to address a safety issue would be Staff's strong recommendation. He recommended that the Planning Commission keep in mind the issue of safety and stated that there could be other opportunities in the future for creating gateway elements in the downtown. He felt that there could be opportunities in the future for enhancements to the intersection of Amador Plaza Road /St. Patrick Way /1 -680 off -ramp and determine more appropriate locations for a gateway element, rather than creating a gateway at a location that doesn't make sense. Wf,,quh,r.IIfeehI'Iq 40 DRAFT DRAFT Chair O'Keefe disagreed and stated that he is not looking for a gateway, only an enhancement to the streetscape that indicates arrival into the project that is aesthetically pleasing and to give Staff the flexibility to determine what it will be. He felt strongly that the element should be included in the conditions. Cm. Do was under the assumption that there will be streetscape, landscaping, and median dividers already implemented. She felt that they won't know what that will look like until the development is complete. She stated that she would not support adding this condition. Chair O'Keefe responded that he wanted something to break -up the asphalt; to go from asphalt to something different then back to asphalt. He understood that there will be other elements to the project but would like to see a break -up of the asphalt. Cm. Bhuthimethee referred the Commissioners to Sheet A -2.0 which shows the site plan for both projects. Cm. Goel referred the Commissioners to Sheet L -1.1 which shows the landscape plan for both projects. Mr. Baker asked Ms. Bascom to show the slide of the improvements at Golden Gate and St. Patrick Way. Ms. Bascom showed the slide that depicts the streetscape enhancements at the St. Patrick Way /Golden Gate intersection and explained the improvements, which include a sidewalk with enhanced paving. Chair O'Keefe stated that he would like to tie in the east end of the project on St. Patrick Way to match with the St. Patrick Way /Golden Gate intersection. Ms. Bascom responded that the intersection of Golden Gate and St. Patrick Way is at a location where they want pedestrians to safely cross the street. She felt that Chair O'Keefe wanted some type of special entry in the street leading into the project area. She felt that using the same material could create the look of a crosswalk in a location where it is not safe to have one because of all the driveways that are close by. Chair O'Keefe felt that Staff could come up with a solution. Ms. Bascom agreed and stated that if the Planning Commission would like to see some type of streetscape enhancements at the eastern property line to signify an entry into the project they can piggyback on the entry monuments. She felt that when all the different elements come together the project will feel very different and she felt that there will be the sense of arrival based on all the new and interesting things that will be there. She stated that if the Planning Commission indicates that they want something to go across the street at that location Staff will work with the Applicant and their team to determine a safe addition to the project. Chair O'Keefe asked the Planning Commission to vote for or against a condition to require an entry on the east end of the project. STRAW VOTE: Chair O'Keefe, yes; DRAFT Cm. Goel, no; Cm. Do, no; Cm. Bhuthimethee, yes; Cm. Kohli, no. F.: Chair O'Keefe asked if the Commissioners would like to add a condition to enhance the parking garage at Eden. Cm. Bhuthimethee responded yes and felt the Applicant was open to enhancing the Eden parking garage. The Planning Commission agreed to add a Condition of Approval to address the parking structure at the Eden property. Chair O'Keefe reopened the public hearing and asked the architect to return to the podium. Cm. Goel stated that he liked the lower portion of the revised elevations for Dublin Blvd. and asked if the Applicant could compromise between the original and revised elevations. Mr. Alley answered yes and stated that he specifically simplified the elevations based on the direction from the Study Session. He stated that he could replace the parapets and would be happy to work with Staff on the elevation. Ms. Bascom asked if the Planning Commission was referring to the 4 different roof elements with the corbel braces and the rooftop features. Chair O'Keefe closed the public hearing. Cm. Goel responded yes and felt that they wanted to bring some 3 dimensional definitions to the elements of the facade to make it more pronounced and not as flat. Cm. Kohli felt the revised version was too flat at the rooftop. He asked Cm. Goel if he wanted to make that a condition. Cm. Goel felt that combining the original and revised versions of the elevation would be a good compromise and move a step closer to what they wanted. He felt that the Planning Commission can agree that this addresses their concerns and can provide some direction and come to a conclusion. The Planning Commission agreed that they wanted to see the original and revised elevations combined regarding the rooftop features and corbel braces on the 4 roof elements of the Dublin Blvd. elevation. Mr. Alley agreed to work with Staff to combine the original and revised elevations of the rooftop features and corbel braces on the 4 roof elements of the Dublin Blvd. elevation. Cm. Bhuthimethee wanted to ensure that the Applicant continues to work with Staff on the color schemes and ensure that the colors that are used are the colors that were approved. Wf,,qu ,r .W,'ee hI'Iq 42 DRAFT DRAFT Ms. Bascom answered that the materials and color boards that are in the packet are much richer than the colors on the slides. She stated that in working with Emerald Vista project she has never worked with a market rate developer that was as concerned with the richness and the appropriateness of the colors on the buildings as Eden Housing. She was sure that the colors will be appropriate and reflective of what should be on the building. She stated that if the Planning Commission has concerns regarding the paint colors they should let them know because the board will be used as a basis. Chair O'Keefe asked if there were any other thoughts regarding the Dublin Blvd. elevation. He stated that he likes the idea of combining the top and bottom elements but was concerned with the middle part. He felt that they should be clear about what they wanted because once this project is approved it will be in the community for a long time. Chair O'Keefe reopened the public hearing and called the architect back to the podium. Mr. Alley stated that he will review the elevation and he discussed how he would revise it to create a solution that the Planning Commission will be happy with. There was a discussion regarding the elevation and some suggestions were made regarding stepping back the cornice and creating more depth on the elevation. Cm. Bhuthimethee suggested adding more to the corner element to make it more of a landmark element. Mr. Alley felt he could create a landmark corner. Cm. Kohli asked about the main entrance that is depicted on the drawing and if that enters into a lobby area. Mr. Alley answered that it is a ceremonial element and would be the entrance to a commercial space. Cm. Kohli wanted to ensure that the corner element was not too bright or different so as to alienate prospective tenants or businesses. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that the architect is talented and will create a successful project. There was a discussion regarding the architecture and what the Planning Commission's direction is regarding the elevation and creating a landmark corner /plaza. Mr. Alley agreed to continue to work with Staff on the corner element of the project to make it more of a signature plaza. Chair O'Keefe closed the public hearing. Chair O'Keefe felt that there was consensus on: changing the Eden garage to look more like the Kingsmill project; combining the original and revised Dublin Blvd elevation; and change the corner element. He felt that the Planning Commission liked the project and the goals that it will achieve for the City and that it shows that they care about the community and what the project will look like. Wf,,qu ,r .W,'ee hI,Iq X 3' DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Baker asked Ms. Bascom to state the draft language for the Conditions of Approval that will be added to the Resolution. Ms. Bascom stated the following: 1) Provide additional enhancements to the north elevation of the parking garage on Site B to create a more residential appearance similar to the treatment on the Site A parking garage east elevation. 2) Applicant to work with Staff to reintroduce the roof elements of the previous design (from the 2/5/2013 Study Session) — including corbel braces, metal parapets — into the perimeter elevations on Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive and to incorporate similar features on other portions of the building facades. 3) Applicant to work with Staff to emphasize the corner element of the building on Site A with unique materials and other signature treatments. On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 5 -0, incorporating the three Conditions as stated by Staff, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 13 -07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT 314 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 17,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE ON 4.74 NET ACRES AND 72 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON 1.37 NET ACRES WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA Marshall Torre stated that Mike Conklin, Sentinels of Freedom, could not be here but was excited about the project. He thanked Staff for all the hard work and they are very excited about the project. 09:57 PM Chair O'Keefe called a short recess. 10:05:37 PM Called meeting back to order. 8.3 PLPA- 2011 -00050 Revisions to the Dublin General Plan and a New Economic Development Element Chair O'Keefe asked if there are any deadlines that are key to approving this item or can it be continued to another meeting. Mr. Baker answered that there are no deadlines. He stated that it is a City Council initiative to be completed during this fiscal year. He added that the Planning Commission can continue the item, but he felt it would be useful to hear the presentation and then decide. He stated that while the attachments to the Staff Report are large, the Commission would not be updating the full document; they mainly are refinements, and updating the exhibits and format. Wf,,quh,r.11feeh1'1q 44 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Goel felt that the Commission should hear the presentation and asked if the Commission could break up the decision on the General Plan update and the Economic Development Element; approving one and continuing the other. Mr. Baker answered yes and stated that the Commission could hear the presentation and then they could make the recommendation to the City Council or continue the item to a later date. The Planning Commission agreed to hear the presentation. Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Linda Smith, Economic Development Director, presented the Economic Development Element portion of the Staff Report. Ms. Delgado continued with the Staff Report. Chair O'Keefe asked the Planning Commission if they would like to continue the item or make a decision. Cm. Goel asked if the General Plan had been reviewed by the City Council prior to the Negative Declaration circulation. Ms. Delgado responded that Staff worked with a variety of departments and agencies outside the City in reviewing and updating the information before the environmental document was prepared. Cm. Goel asked if the document has been reviewed by all the departments and legal. Mr. Baker answered yes. Cm. Goel asked if there was also a Study Session to discuss the update. Mr. Baker answered yes; there was a Study Session held with the Planning Commission regarding the creation of the Economic Development Element in December 2012. He added that the rest of the item is updates and refreshing of information, but very little new policy. Cm. Goel asked if the City Council has already seen the document before the circulation. Mr. Baker answered no; the Planning Commission's role is to review the document and make a recommendation to the City Council and then it will go to the City Council for final action. Chair O'Keefe asked how long it took from the time the City Council added it as an initiative for the implementation of the Economic Development Element. Ms. Smith responded that the process started with the Strategic Plan Process two years ago. She stated that creation of an element was placed into the Strategic Plan and Initiatives for two years prior, 2010/11. She stated that the Strategy was adopted in November. Chair O'Keefe asked if there will be a similar process for the proposed Energy and Water elements. Wf,,quh,r.11feeh1'1q 45 DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Baker answered yes; the City Council added the elements to their work strategy and prioritized them. He stated that the Economic Development Element was first, the Water Element was second and the Energy Element is third. He stated that the Water Element will come forward in the next few months and the Energy Element within the next Fiscal year. Chair O'Keefe asked if the City will also use consulting firms for those elements. Mr. Baker answered, not entirely. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that the Economic Development Element is the critical part that was missing from the General Plan. She liked the Economic Development principles regarding quality of life, attracting companies and achieving the downtown vision. She asked why Ms. Smith feels that the Economic Development Element is important. Ms. Smith responded that the Tri- Valley community is not the same as other communities relating to economic development; the Tri - Valley is more expensive to do business in and the reasons some people have their business here is because they live here. She felt that CEO's and executives want to work close to home so a high quality of life makes Dublin more attractive for businesses to locate here. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked how the Planning Commission can support the Economic Development Element. Ms. Smith answered that a mix of housing options for employees to live; successful land use planning; providing high density living in an urban environment; great schools; Class A office market type tenants as opposed to industrial tenants all support economic growth. She felt that the land use planning that has already been established creates a good foundation and sets a tone that business is important and that there is continuity in the City's approach. She felt that "certainty" is a key factor that the business will be heard and processed in a timely manner. She stated that their biggest challenge is the high cost of fees for development. Chair O'Keefe asked what Ms. Smith felt is the biggest challenge to bringing entertainment to the downtown. Ms. Smith responded that the biggest challenge is the composition of the property ownership; there is a lot of institutional investors in the downtown who are not too interested in making changes to their property. She added that there are challenges from the CC &Rs that the property owners placed on each other since the early 70's. Chair O'Keefe asked if the owners of the Promenade have requested a zoning change from retail /commercial to housing and will that come before the Planning Commission. Ms. Smith responded that the Promenade is an entitled and approved project but there have been financial difficulties in constructing it. She stated that it is a mid -block project which will be difficult to tenant until the other "A" sites are built out and tenanted. She felt that the original General Plan Amendment request included limited components of the site, the public /semi- public site and a few pads buildings, not the entire project. Chair O'Keefe asked if she meant that it would be constructed in phases. Wf,,quh,r.IIfeehI'Iq 4h DRAFT DRAFT Ms. Smith answered that the request was regarding the public /semi - public land and a small component of the retail /commercial piece not the entire Promenade. She felt that the project would be very expensive to build and tenant. Chair O'Keefe asked if part of the Promenade property fronts onto Tassajara Road. Ms. Smith answered no. Cm. Kohli asked how this Economic Development Element can help fill Grafton Station's vacant tenant spaces. Ms. Smith answered that the first priority would be to implement incentives for businesses specific to that center. She mentioned that there have been challenges in tenanting that center because of timing, the cost to rent in the project, and the constraints the financial institution was placing on the property owner. She stated, as an example, the Dublin Corporate Center was 70% vacant but with some creativity from their financial institution they made deals and made things happen. Cm. Kohli asked if the element is a vehicle to help fill Grafton Station. He felt that the document is definitely more high level and allows more flexibility. Ms. Smith responded that the specifics are outlined in the Strategy, but the first set of strategies related to incentives is to continue looking at what the appropriate incentives are for which business. Chair O'Keefe asked if the parcel that is west of the Promenade on Tassajara Road has the same property owner. Ms. Smith answered no, there are separate owners. Chair O'Keefe asked what the struggle is with the piece on property on Tassajara Road. Chris Foss, Assistant City Manager, responded that the property is approximately 80 acres owned by the Dublin Land Co. He stated that the City Council recently considered a request for a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to convert a portion of the site from General Commercial and Residential to Residential. He stated that the City Council asked to put the request on hold for additional study. Cm. Goel asked if Figure 3.1, the bikeways plan, has been incorporated. Ms. Delgado responded that Figure 3.1 is a map in the Parks and Open Space Element with the primary goal of the map to show the location of parks, but it also shows existing and proposed bike lanes that would provide access to those parks. She added that there are maps in Chapter 5 that are more specific to alternate modes of transportation. Cm. Goel stated that he appreciates Figure 3.1 and, as a cyclist and bike safety advocate, he supports the proposed bike lanes. He also is in support of Figure 5.1 which notes arterial collectors and freeways that explain the vision, focus and how the City works. He also mentioned Chapter 11, Section 11.7.1 regarding "shovel- ready" parcels around the east Dublin DRAFT DRAFT BART station and hoped that in conjunction with 11.8.2 will show guidance. He complemented Staff for their work on this project. Cm. Kohli suggested that the City revisit the lifestyle center that was the Green at Park Place. He understood that the economic times have changed, but felt that the City would benefit from a life style center project that complements Hacienda Crossings with premium retail, multi -use, apartments /condos, and a walkway bridge to Hacienda Crossings. He felt that it could make a statement for the City and build on the Economic Strategy. Ms. Smith responded that the City Council has asked to revisit it and Blake Hunt, the property owner representative, has asked for a General Plan Amendment study to change the land use to a mixed use designation and Staff will be reviewing the project. Chair O'Keefe opened the public hearing, and having no speakers, closed the public hearing. Cm. Kohli stated that he is in support of the amendments to the General Plan and the Economic Development Element. He asked if the Economic Development Element can be reviewed and updated in the future. Mr. Baker responded that it will be a permanent Element of the General Plan with a long term focus, but the language can be amended with the City Council's direction. Cm. Kohli stated that he supports the Economic Development Element which he felt is a living part of the General Plan that can be revisited over time. Mr. Baker responded that the Strategy is a more fluid document then the General Plan which sets the overarching long -term direction for the City. He stated that the Strategy is a way to implement the General Plan with goals and action items. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked how often the General Plan is amended or updated. Mr. Baker answered that the General Plan is a long term document that not amended a lot. He stated that the most frequent amendments are related to a development project to change a land use designation and the amendments are limited to four per Element, per year. Ms. Faubion responded that the General Plan is not required to be updated on a regular schedule, except the Housing Element. The General Plan is intended to be responsive to the situation but can continue on as long as it remains valid and meets the needs of the community. Chair O'Keefe asked if the changes and additions are in response to governmental authorities and is the City only required to update those changes when they make other changes to the document. Ms. Faubion answered yes; and stated that, for example, the Complete Streets statute reads that the next time a community does a substantial revision to their General Plan they should adopt a Complete Street policy. On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Cm. Kohli, on a vote of 5 -0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: DRAFT DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 13 - 08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE REVISED GENERAL PLAN AND NEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT RESOLUTION NO. 13- 09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE REVISED GENERAL PLAN AND NEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS — NONE OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and /or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). ADJOURNMENT — The meeting was adjourned at 10:55:45 P Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Jeff Baker Assistant Community Development Director G:WINUTESI20131PLANNING COMMISSIONI03.26.13 DRAFT PC MINUTES (CF).doc RESOLUTION NO. 13- 09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE REVISED GENERAL PLAN AND NEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT PLPA- 2011 -00050 WHEREAS, one of the City Council's key initiatives for Fiscal Year 2011/2012 was to update the General Plan and create a new Economic Development Element (the "Project "); and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act certain projects are required to be reviewed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental documents prepared; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared for the Project; and WHEREAS, upon completion of the Initial Study it was determined that there was no substantial evidence that the Project would have a significant adverse effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration should be prepared; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study /Negative Declaration ( "Negative Declaration ") was prepared and circulated for public review from February 15, 2013 to March 18, 2013; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin did not receive any comments during the public review period; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project on March 26, 2013 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission adopt Resolutions recommending that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review and consider the Initial Study /Negative Declaration, all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment prior to making a recommendation on the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution adopting a Negative Declaration for a General Plan Amendment for the revised General Plan and new Economic Development Element, with the draft City Council Resolution attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. vote: PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of March 2013 by the following AYES: O'Keefe, Bhuthimethee, Do, Goel, Kohli NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director Planning Commission Chair 2of2 RESOLUTION NO. 13- 08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE REVISED GENERAL PLAN AND NEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT PLPA- 2011 -00050 WHEREAS, one of the City Council's key initiatives for Fiscal Year 2011/2012 was to update the General Plan and create a new Economic Development Element (the "Project "); and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act certain projects are required to be reviewed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental documents prepared; and WHEREAS, consistent with California Government Code Section 65352.3, the City requested a contact list of local Native American tribes from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to notify the tribes on the contact list of the opportunity to consult with the City on the proposed General Plan amendments. The NAHC did not respond to the request for a contact list and therefore no further action is required; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project on March 26, 2013 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission adopt Resolutions recommending that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the Project; and WHEREAS, and on March 26, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 13- XX recommending that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration for the Project which resolution is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review and consider the Negative Declaration, all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth prior to making its recommendation on the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving a General Plan Amendment for the revised General Plan and new Economic Development Element, with the draft City Council Resolution attached as Exhibit A and incorporate herein by reference. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of March 2013 by the following vote: AYES: O'Keefe, Bhuthimethee, Do, Goel, Kohli NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director Planning Commission Chair 2of2 RESOLUTION NO. XX - 13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * ** ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE REVISED GENERAL PLAN AND NEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT PLPA- 2011 -00050 WHEREAS, one of the City Council's key initiatives for Fiscal Year 2011/2012 was to update the General Plan and create a new Economic Development Element (the "Project "); and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act certain projects are required to be reviewed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental documents prepared; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared for the Project; and WHEREAS, upon completion of the Initial Study it was determined that there was no substantial evidence that the Project would have a significant adverse effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration should be prepared; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study /Negative Declaration ( "Negative Declaration ") attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference was prepared and circulated for public review from February 15, 2013 to March 18, 2013; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin did not receive any comments during the public review period; and WHEREAS, on March 26, 2013 the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, and adopted Resolution 13 -09 (incorporated herein by reference) recommending that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project on April 16, 2013 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report (incorporated herein by reference) was submitted recommending that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council did review and consider the Negative Declaration, all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth prior to taking action on the Project; and WHEREAS, the Negative Declaration and related project and environmental documents, and all of the documents incorporated herein by reference, are available for review in the City Planning Division a Dublin City Hall, file PLPA- 2011 -00050 during normal business hours. The location and custodian of the draft Negative Declaration and other documents that constitute the 1 of 2 record of proceedings for the Project is the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA, 94568, file PLPA- 2011 - 00050. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED as follows: A. The Dublin City Council has reviewed and considered the draft Negative Declaration, prior to acting on the Project. B. The Negative Declaration adequately describes the environmental impacts of the Project. On the basis of the whole record before it, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment. C. The Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. D. The Negative Declaration is complete and adequate and reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis as to the environmental effects of the Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the above findings, the City Council adopts the Negative Declaration for PLPA- 2011 - 00050, consisting of the Initial Study /Negative Declaration attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of April 2013, by the following vote- AYES- NOES- ABSENT- ABSTAIN- ATTEST- City Clerk 2of2 Mayor Dublin General Plan Update PLPA-2011-00050 INITIAL STTI DYI Lead Agency: City of Dublin Prepared By: Jerry Haag, Urban Planner February 2013 Table of Contents Introduction................. <,..................,...............,.,............................. ..............................2 Contact Person & Sponsor .............................................. ............................... ..........2 ProjectLocation and Context ........................................................ ..............................2 ProjectDescription .......................................................................... ..............................3 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............ ............................... .......13 Determination.............................................. ............................... .. .............................13 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .......................................... .............................15 EarlierAnalyses ................................................................................ ........... ­.................16 Discussionof Checklist ................................................... ............................... .......27 1. Aesthetics ............................................... ............................... ....,....27 2. Agricultural Resources ....................... ............................... ...................29 3. Air Quality/ Greenhouse Gas Analysis .............................. ....30 4. Biological Resources ................................................ .............................31 5. Cultural Resources ................................................... .............................32 6. Geology and Soils ............................. ............................... ................32 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................... .............................34 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................... .............................34 9. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................... .............................36 10. Land Use and Planning ........................................... .............................38 11. Mineral Resources ................................................... .............................38 12. Noise .......................................................................... .............................38 13. Population and Housing ......................................... .............................40 14. Public Services ......................................................... .............................40 15. Recreation ....................................... ............................... .......41 16. Transportation/ Traffic ............................................ .............................42 17. Utilities and Service Systems, ..................... . ........................ 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance ..... ............................... ..... 45 InitialStudy Preparers ................................................................... .............................46 Agencies and Organizations Consulted ........ ............................... ........46 References...................................................... ............................... ..46 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1: Regional Context ........................................................... ..............................9 Exhibit 2: City of Dublin Planning Area .............................. ............................... .10 Exhibit 3: General Plan Land Use Map ...................................... ............................... .11 City of Dublin Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study Introduction This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project described below. The initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. Project Sponsor & Contact Person City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 (925) 833 6610 Attn: Mamie Delgado, Senior Planner Project Location and Context The City of Dublin Planning Area consists of approximately 18.76 square mites of land area lying in eastern Alameda County, also known as the Livermore- Amador Valley, or the Tri- Valley area. Surrounding jurisdictions include the City of San Ramon and unincorporated Contra Costa County to the north, unincorporated Alameda County to the east and west and the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore to the south. Exhibit I shows the location of Dublin in relation to surrounding communities and other major features. The General Plan includes policies for the City's three Planning Areas: the Primary Planning Area, Eastern Extended Planning Area and Western Extended Planning Area. The Primary Planning Area consists of the original 1982 City boundaries and those annexations occurring to the west between 1985 and 1991. The Eastern Extended Planning Area is located east of the Primary Planning Area while the Western Extended Planning Area is located west of the Primary Planning Area. The Eastern and Western Extended Planning Areas are coterminous with the City's Sphere of Influence. Each of the City's Planning Areas are described in further detail below. • Enmary Primary Pla ng Area. The Primary Planning Area contains approximately 3,100 acres of land including the City's downtown area and is considered the central part of the City. This Planning Area is also served by the Western Dublin BART station. City of Dublin sage 2 Initial Study /General Plan Update February 2013 The Primary Planning Area is fully developed; there are no large vacant parcels remaining. Nearly 300 acres in the downtown area is covered by the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, which facilitates redevelopment in the area, including additional residential mixed -use projects, Eastern Extended Planning, Area. The Eastern Extended Planning Area contains approximately 4,300 acres of land and is generally located south and east of the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Parks RFTA or Camp Parks). Since 1995, the Eastern Extended Planning Area has developed steadily, creating a distinctive and balanced use area that complements the remainder of the City. The extension of Dublin Boulevard eastward provides the physical link that connects the Eastern Extended Planning Area to the rest of Dublin. Despite being separated from the Primary Planning Area by Parks RFTA, the Eastern Extended Planning Area provides a variety of development opportunities that has enhanced the residential, employment, retail, recreation and cultural character of the entire City. The development pattern in the Eastern Extended Planning Area facilitates the use of transit both on a local and regional level and includes the Dublin Pleasanton BART station. approximately . 3 O01a Wing lea. The Western Extended Planning Area contains estern Extended acres of land and is located west of the Primary Planning Area. Thts Plannin Area presents a unique opportunity for the City of Dublin, being part of an open space corridor stretching from Contra Costa County to Santa Clara County. With its steep terrain and scenic oak woodlands, the Western Extended Planning Area has important open space value for Dublin and the region. At the same time, portions of the Western Extended PIa'ng Area have provided a unique opportunity for carefully planned development in the southwestern portion of the Planning Area. Major ridgelines screen most of the development from key off- site viewpoints resulting in opportunities to provide housing and recreation without major disruption to the scenic values in the surrounding area. Clustering development has increased land use efficiency and protected key ridgelines, woodland areas and other important features. Development in the Western Extended Planning Area is largely limited to Schaefer Ranch, which has been approved for development by the City of Dublin. Exhibit 2 shows the location of the three General Plan Planning Areas in Dublin. General Plan content and amendment procedures are guided by the Planning and ,Zoning Law, Government Code § 65300 et seq. Project Description _ackgLo —und. The text and plan maps adopted by the City Council in the General Plan constitute a guide for the day to day physical development decisions that shape the social, economic, and environmental character of the City and its extended planning areas. In accordance with Government Code Section 65300, the General Plan includes City of Dublin Page 3 Initial Study /General Plan Update February 2013 policies for the Planning Area, including the City limits proper and those areas outside the City limits that bear relation to Dublin's planning. Proposed General Plan U date. The City of Dublin is proposing revisions to the existing 1985 General Plan, as amended through March 23, 2012. Revisions are proposed to all existing Elements constituting the current General Plan, with the exception of the Housing Element. The proposed revisions reflect underlying changes within the City of Dublin (such as new streets), and respond to recent changes in state planning law, and other regulatory requirements. The planning horizon for the General Plan is 2035. No additional development is proposed as part of the proposed revisions over and above that included in the current General Plan. Similarly, no major policy changes, land use or density changes are proposed as art of the revisions to the General Plan. Therefore, existing assumptions contained in the current General Plan regarding Dublin's build - out population, the number of dwellings and the square footage of non-residential development remain in place. The revised General Plan dated February 13, 2013 is hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study. Copies of the revised General Plan document are available for review at Dublin City Hall, Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA during normal business hours. The following Elements constitute the revised Dublin General Plan: Land Use; Parks and Open Space; Schools, Public Lands and Utilities; Circulation and Scenic Highways; Housing (no proposed changes); Conservation; Seismic Safety and Safety; Noise; Community Design and Sustainability; and Economic Development. Each Element is briefly described below. ,Land Use Element: Dublin's Land Use Element includes a Land'Use Map showing the location of residential, commercial, industrial, and open space land uses within the Dublin planning area at full build -out. There are no changes to the Land Use Map. There is also an accompanying text document that includes descriptions of all land uses shown on the Land Use Map as well as population density and intensity and impact of new growth on local military facilities. The Land Use Element includes Guiding Policies and Implementing Policies with respect to housing availability, neighborhood diversity, residential compatibility, commercial and industrial land use and specific policies dealing with the Primary Planning Area, Eastern Extended Planning Area and Western Extended Planning Area. At build -out of the Land Use Element, there could be a range of between 11,529 and 27,628 dwelling units of various configurations (single family detached, apartments, etc.) in Dublin, a population ranging in size between 31,021 and 92,879 and a range of between 26.16 million and 41.58 million square feet of non- residential that includes office, commercial, light industrial and similar uses. The Land Use Element also provides for a range of neighborhood and community parks, open spaces, schools, public and quasi -public uses. The above development projections and assumptions are based on existing land use designations and density ranges, which are not proposed to be changed. Revisions to the Land Use Element generally include recent development activity that has occurred over the years in each of the City's Planrdllg Areas. Current City of Dublin Page 4 Initial Study /General Plan Update February 2013 housing and job estimates are included in the updated descriptions of each Planning Area as well as a table that summarizes the land use and development potential within each Planning Area. None of these charges affects the land use designations, density or location of development under the General Plan. Parks and Open Space Element: Dublin's Parks and Open Space Element desigpates Iand in the Dublin planning area for the preservation of natural resources, the managed production of resources, outdoor recreation opportunities, public health and safety and open space to support military installations. The Parks and Open Space Element includes land reserved for these purposes as identified on the Land Use Map. The Parks and Open Space Element also includes Guiding Policies and Implementing Policies for the preservation and use of open spaces within the Primary Planning Area, Eastern Extended Planning Area and Western Extended Planning Area. Changes to this Element include updates to properties with Williamson Act Agreements and new Implementing Policies relating to the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Schools, Public Lands and utilities Element: Dublin's Schools, Public Lands and Utilities Element includes Guiding Policies and Implementing Policies dealing with public schools, public lands, solid waste disposal, sewage treatment and disposal, water supply and hazardous waste management within the Primary Planning Area, Eastern Extended Planning Area and Western Extended Planning Area. This Element has been updated to reflect the City's current solid waste and recycling collection programs, wastewater collection and treatment services, and potable and recycled water services. Circulation and Scenic Highways Element: Dublin's Circulation and Scenic Highways Element includes the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, any military airports and ports, and other local public utilities and facilities. Transportation and circulation improvements are correlated with the Land Use Element to meet the needs of the population planned for in the Land Use Element. Guiding and Implementing Policies are provided in the Circulation and Scenic Highways Element addressing each of these topics. No changes are proposed to the transportation patterns or facilities in the Circulation and Scenic Highways Element. The major change to this Element is the addition of policies and discussion regarding Complete Streets, in accordance with recent legislation, The City adopted a related Complete Streets Policy in 2012 and is now including that existing policy in the General Plan. The Complete Streets provisions are intended to promote transportation options and independent mobility, increase community safety, encourage healthy, active living, reduce environmental impacts, minimize impacts to climate change from vehicle emissions and support greater social interaction and community identity. These goals are proposed to be accomplished by providing safe, comfortable, and convenient travel along and across streets through a comprehensive, integrated transportation network for all City of Dublin initial Study /General Plan Update Page 5 February 2013 users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, motorists, public transit riders, movers of commercial goods, and special needs users such as children, persons with disabilities, seniors, youth, and families. The proposed provisions overlap other existing policies in the City's CIimate Action Plan and the Community Design and Sustainability Element. The Circulation and Scenic Highways Element also contains.Guiding and Implementing Policies dealing with Scenic Corridors in Dublin which include the I -580 and 1 -680 freeways, San Ramon Road, Dougherty Road and Tassajara Road. No changes are proposed to these provisions. ' Mousing Element: Dublin's Housing Element was updated by the City and certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development in 2010 and no additional changes have been proposed as• part of the revisions to the General Plan. In accordance with State law, the Housing Element will be updated again in October 2014. Conservation Element: Dublin's Conservation Element addresses the following statutorily required elements: water resources, agriculture and other soils, rivers and streams, and wildlife habitats. Other resources discussed in this Element are air quality and archaeological and historical resources. Dublin is located inland from major bodies of water and contains no harbors or fisheries. No substantial forests or mineral extraction areas are located in any of the Dublin planning areas. The Conservation Element contains Guiding and Implementing Policies addressing stream corridors and riparian vegetation, erosion and siltation control, oak woodlands, air quality, agricultural lands, archeological and historic resources, open space maintenance and management within the Primary Planning Area, Eastern Extended Planning Area and Western Extended Planning Area. Changes to this Element include updating a discussion of drainage patterns in the Eastern Extended Planning Area, including references to the City's Heritage Tree Ordinance and formalizing a requirement for an air quality analysis for future development proposals that could generate significant air quality emissions. Seismic Safety and Safety Element: As required by state law, Dublin's Seismic Safety and Safety Element provides an assessment of the risk of ground shaking, rupture, and failure due to earthquakes. The Element includes Guiding and Implementing Polices addressing the potential for landslide, earth subsidence and liquefaction hazards. The Seismic Safety and Safety Element also discusses flooding, emergency preparedness and urban and wildland fire hazards and hazardous materials. Changes to this Element include updating references to regional flood control facilities, updating policies relating to hazardous material incident responses, adding guiding and implementing policies to require site - specific hazardous material studies for potentially contaminated sites and updating exhibits relating to soil hazards, such as landslides, and flooding potential. Noise Element: The focus of Dublin's Noise Element is the effect of traffic noise on g C locatin g__ ate orxes of land use and developing projects within those cateLyoriefi. ,. City of Dublin Initial Study/General Plan Update Page 6 February 2013 The City's three Planning Areas contain no railroad=the rts, heliports or industrial plants, although BART tracks are located I -580 right-of-way on the south side of Dublin. The Parks Reserve Forces Training Area does contain a heliport and is located between Dublin's Primary and Eastern Extended Planning Areas. Traffic continues to be the primary source of continuous noise in Dublin. Noise exposure contours have been plotted for 2011 (based on current traffic data) and projected to 2035 based on traffic volume increases from potential future development under the General Plan (see Figures 9-1 and 9_2). Projected noise exposure is based on'the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) as required by statute. Changes to this Element include a new implementing policy to address new noise transmission standards required by the California Green Building Standards Code and updated exhibits depicting current and future (2035) noise contours. Community Design and Sustainubility Element: Dublin's Community Design and Sustainability Element was adopted in 2010 and sets forth goals, policies and implementation measures to assist in creating an environmentally friendly community with a distinct sense of place. Draft Economic Development Element: This proposed new Element establishes goals and policies to expand business and employment opportunities in the community. Proposed goals include developing economic vibrancy in the community, improving conditions for small businesses, developing strategic employment supporting sites and achieving of the City's Downtown vision. These goals and policies are proposed within the existing land use designation framework. Build -out of the community under the revised General Plan continue to take place through a variety of public sector actions undertaken by the City and other governmental agencies, consistent with the City's Capital Improvement Program and Budget and private development activities undertaken on various sites in the community. Development in the City is guided by a robust combination of General Plan policies and three major specific plans (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, and Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan). Development areas in Schaefer Ranch and Eastern Dublin are further defined by existing PD- Planned Development zoning that has established site- and project - specific development standards. Several sets of design guidelines have also been established for various parts of the City, while virtually all i-tew development requires a Site Development Review permit as well as compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and other City development regulations. Development is similarly subject to environmental regulation by agencies at the federal, state and local level, in such areas as biological resources and endangered species, air quality, and water quality, among others. Virtually all potentially developable land in all three of the City's planning areas has been entitled to at least a PD -Stage 1 Development Plan level, or equivalent, and is required to comply not only with applicable development regulations but also with adopted environmental review mitigation measures. Future individual developments submitted to the City of Dublin City of Dublin Page 7 Initial Study /General Plan Update February 2013 under the revised General Plan may be required to undergo further site or project - specific CEQA review prior to action being taken by the City; however, the proposed General Flan revisions are minor updates that will have little if any effect on this established land use and permitting structure. City of Dublin Page 8 Initial Study /General Plan Update February 2013 t ri x v CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN UPDATE INITIAL STUDY Exhibit 1 REGIONAL CONTEXT I 0 0 B B 10 nuke -'i Eastern Extended Planning Area Boundary M Streets Primary Planning Area Boundary City of Dublin ®I Western Extended Planning Area Boundary L_-_1 Sphere of Influence SOUWF' CWOMUORn.24 -2073. CITY OF DUBLIN Exhibit 2 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FCITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING AREAS INITIALSTUDY ,I � I I., 1N11ea r f ,. .. .. C'It\ ol- I., cl mol Pub11cl5emt-PublielOpen 5paee Comen,mialllnduatrial Downtown Dublin °..e.L>.*. � ciryawnlM I. P uIkfteveaBOn c ,alcom aae made Re uot„,rw.m wam -mtaa Panwnv alma OBxnlam ouelln.TnnfOIXknletl einrM C. sp—of ma,ence OOan Sp ca . RealWIXeena/wmmoev I eoxnlvm main -name nlsNtl Ciy Bl Llvemnre sreem cwmw Negnecmoae commaame Residential � �,� a � c• ^aml ca oBKe � ciy BrPleaaanlon „,� �„ � v o m amw P �emiaroemuae a «,wvnBrtwwren uutoer too croea aaaRaanan..a» �� „ SemIPUBBC Meaeei.lPwv Gy of san Ramon ,o � Bu9neu PehllMUSmaI msiry SmOk.emiry l0.n -9.B awe» _ w � aaw wa v.,l .ew a0 Communiy Pwk Neekooraoetl Spuen eu ness PaNJIMUaMel end OUttl0or0twpe Lwr OenailY ReskenUal10.0 e.00u /a<) aM0le Pamity fte9tlenlW ro.0�6.0aWea M�Po @cm.� ® Negk4wBaatl Pen ® Regoaa nark I'=1 MWlwn -nenY tyReadr (e.t�im a an M Pua Omca � Meari.n06BN.Realeenrw (te.t -25.0 au2» MWiBMNIBN Oenaly --In— � Ripn .aneib R.— Rasaanum (xit«avaq Rrua�. .xt..+�_wuers,m.rtei. SOURCE. Ceynl Dublin, 2 -1 -2013 CITY OF DUBLIN Ezhiblt3 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE LAND USE MAP INITIAL STUDY 1. Project description: Adoption of a revised General Plan for the City of Dublin. Revisions are proposed to the following Elements: Land Use; Parks and Open Space; Schools, Public Lands and Utilities; Circulation and Scenic Highways; Conservation, Seismic Safety and Safety; Noise; and, Community Design and Sustainability. A new Economic Development Element is also proposed. No modifications have been made to the Housing Element. 2. Lead agency: 3. Contact persons: 4. Project location: 5. Project sponsor: G. General Plan designation: 7. Zoning: City of Dublin Marnie Delgado, Senior PIanner City -wide City of Dublin Various Various 8. Other public agency required approvals: None City of Dublin Page 12 Initlal Study /General flan Update February 2013 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. - Aesthetics - Agricultural - Air Quality Resources - Biological - Cultural Resources Geology Soils Resources - Hazards and - HydroIogy Water - Land Use Hazardous Quality Planning Materials - Mineral Resources - Noise - Population Housin - Public Services - Recreation - Transportation Circulation - Utilities Service - Mandatory Systems Findings of Significance Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: X I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. _ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared. _I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, but at least one effect l) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An Environmental Impact Report is required, but must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed. City of Dublin Page 13 Initial Study /General Plan Update February a 13 l find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Elie pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project. Signature:. tuyise N§N, ! Printed Name: K" k OLAado 14. U City of Dublin Initial Study /General Plan Update Date: 664 M 1,A 'I For: 64 64L. Page 14 February 2013 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project - specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). 2) In some instances, an "LS, Less-than-Significant Impact" response may reflect that a specific environmental topic has been analyzed in a previous CEQA document and appropriate mitigation measures have been included in a previous CEQA document to reduce this impact to a less- than - significant level. In a few instances, some previously analyzed topics have been determined to be significant and unavoidable and mitigation of such impact to a less -than- significant level is not feasible. In approving the previous CEQA document, the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations. For the E2009 -2014 Housing Element update, such environmental impacts have been adequately analyzed and no new impacts would occur. 3) All answers must take account of the whole action, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 4) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "potentially significant impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 5) "Negative Declaration. Less- Than - Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" implies elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from potentially significant effect" to a "less than significant impact," The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. City of Dublin Page 15 Initial StudytGeneral Plan Update February 2013 Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist) Earlier Analyses Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, a program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Reference CEQA Guideline Section 15063 (c)(3)(d). City of Dublin rage 16 Initial Study /General Plan Update February 2013 Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist) Note: A full discussion of each item is found followin the checklist. 1. Aesthetics. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Source: 1, 6.8) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway i (Source: 1, 6, 8) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 6) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source: 6, 8) 2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non- agricultural use? (Source: 1, 2 ,7) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 4) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to a non- agricultural use? (Source: 4,6) d) Result In the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? (6) e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion offarmiand to a non - agricultural use or conversion of forestiand to a non forest use? (6) City of Dublin Initial Study /General Flan Update g Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X Fags 17 February 201 a 3. Air Quality (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district may be relied on to make the following determinations), Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 4, 8) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source: 4, 8) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (Including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? (8) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Source: 6, 8) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Source: 4) 4. Biological Resources. Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U,S. Fish and Wildlife Service ?(Source: 1,2, 8) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 1, 2, 8) City of Dublin Initial Study /General Plan Update Potentially Sign Impact Less Than FSignificant No Significan Impact With Mitigation X X X X X X X Page 18 February 2013 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited t marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? (Source: Source: 1, 2, 8) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 1, 2,4) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree protection ordinances? (Source: 1, 2) f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 8) S. Cultural Resources, Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Sec. 150645? (Source: 1, 4) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 1,4) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, site or unique geologic feature? (Source: 1, 4) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of aformal cemetery? (1,4) 6. Geology and Soils. Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Source: 1, 2, 4, 5) City of Dublin Initial Study /General Plan Update Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X Page 19 February 2013 ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (1,2,4,5) iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? (1,2,4,5) iv) Landslides? (I,2,4,5) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Source: 1,2,4,5) c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards (Source: 4) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -13 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Source: 4) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (Source: 8) 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Source: 3) b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Source 3) 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials (Source: 2, 8) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Source: 2,8) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source: 2, 8) City of Dublin Initial Study /General Plan Update Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Less than Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation No Impact X X X X X X X X X X X X Page 20 February 2013 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source: 8) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport of public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 8) f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 8) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source: 4, 8) h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 2, 8) 9. Hydrology and 'Water Quality. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source; 4, 7) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g, the production rate of existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (7) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (Source: 4,7) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Page 21 Initial Study /General Flan Update February 2013 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (Source: 4,7) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source: 4, 7) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Source: 7, 8) g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? (Source: 8) h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Source: 8) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, and death involving flooding, Including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (8) J) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? (5) 10. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Source: 4,6) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 4) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (8) I I- Mineral Resources. Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Source: 8) City of Dublin Initial Study /General flan Update Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti anon Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X X X Page 22 February 2013 b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general Plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Source: 8) 12. Noise. Would the proposal result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (4) b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Source: 4) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the project? (4) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (4) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working n the project area to excessive noise levels? (8) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 8) 13. Population and Housing. Would the project a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 2,4) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (4) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement of housing elsewhere? (Source: 4) City of Dublin Initial Study /General Plan Update Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X X Page 23 February 2013 14. Public Services. Would the proposal: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision o new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? (Sources: 7) ;~ire protection Police protection School s Parks Other public facilities Solid Waste 15. Recreation: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (Source: 4,5) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 4,5) 16. Transportation and Tragic. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and all non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths and mass transit? (4-) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways? (4) City of Dublin Initial Study /General Plan Update Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Taws than Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation No Impact f X X X X X X X X X X Page N February 2013 c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in the location that results in substantial safety risks? (8) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm equipment? (4,7) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (8) f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease the performance of safety of such facilities ?(4) 17. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (7) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (7) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (4,7) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing water entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (7) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? (7) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (7) g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (7) Potentially Significant Impact Uss Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No impact X X X X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Page 25 Initial Study /General Plan Update February 2013 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact Uss Than Significant With Mitigation Lass than Significant Impact 1. No Impact X X X SOurcel used to - e mine potential environmental impacts City of Du in General Plan, updated through March 23, 2012 2) Eastern Dublin GPA and Specific Plan EIR, August 1992/December 1992 3) City of Dublin Climate Action Plan (CAP), October 2010 4) Draft Revised General Plan, February 13, 2013 5) City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2006 6) Site Visit 7) Discussion with City staff or service provider 8) Other Source City of Dublin Initial Study /General Plan Update Page 26 February 2013 Attachment to Initial Study Discussion of Checklist Legend PS: Potentially Significant LS / M: Less Than Significant After Mitigation LS: Less Than Significant Impact NI: No Impact 1. Aesthetics Project Impacts a-c) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista, substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway or substantially degrade the visual character of a site and its surroundings? LS. Much of the Dublin Planning Area has been developed with urban uses, parks or permanent open space uses. However, significant scenic resources and scenic vistas exist within the Western Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Extended Planning Area. The Primary Planning Area has been extensively developed with residences, commercial uses, schools, public facilities, parks and related urban uses. There are no designated scenic vistas or scenic resources and no degradation of the visual character of the environment, including scenic highways, that would result from the General Plan revisions. A number of scenic vistas, scenic resources, including open space hillsides, ridges and other features, exist in the Western Extended Planning Area. Much of the Western Extended Planning Area is protected from future development by the adoption of the Urban Limit Line by the City in 2000. Although a portion of the I -580 freeway forms the southern boundary of the Western Extended Planning Area, the freeway frontage has been developed or retained as open space through the development of the Schaefer Ranch project. The General Plan revisions would not affect the Urban Limit Line, the Schaefer Ranch project approval or any other existing protections for area open space and scenic resources. The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, adopted in 1993, include a number of policies and Action Programs to protect scenic vistas, scenic resources and visual characters of lands in the Eastern Extended Planning Area. These include policies and programs protecting open spaces, stream corridors, wetlands, biological resources, ridgelands, scenic corridors and hillside development restrictions that have been applied as eastern Dublin has developed. These policies continue to apply to development proposed in eastern Dublin to ensure that future development will respect existing scenic resources and visual character. The City also adopted a City of Dublin Page 27 Initial Study /General Plan Update February 2013 Development Elevation Cap that restricts development above the 770' contour in eastern Dublin. The proposed General Plan revisions will not change or affect any of these existing policy protections in eastern Dublin. In 1996, the City of Dublin adopted the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards that apply to portions of the Eastern Extended Planning Area. The purpose of this document is to implement Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) visual protection policies related to individual development projects. All development in the Eastern Extended Planning Area is subject to the provisions of this document, which generally requires limitations on blockage of views to visually sensitive hillsides in the northern and eastern portions of the Eastern Extended Planning Area. The proposed General Plan revisions will not change or affect the scenic corridor policies or their application to development projects. New residential, commercial, light industrial and other development projects proposed in the City will continue to undergo development review and to adhere to General PIan Guiding and Implementing Policies contained in the Conservation Element and Community Design &c Sustainability Element to protect stream corridors and associated riparian vegetation, oak woodlands, agricultural lands and scenic qualities. Further protection of visual resources is provided through the Heritage Tree ordinance which requires review and replacement of heritage trees proposed for removal. Adherence to the General PIan Guiding and Implementing Policies cited above, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards document, the Urban Limit Line in western Dublin and the Development Cap in eastern Dublin and other protective policies would continue to be required for new development and would not be affected by the proposed General Plan revisions, Therefore, the project impacts to scenic vistas, damage to scenic vistas, including scenic highways, or substantial degradation of the visual character of the community would be less -than- significant. d) Create new sources of significant amounts of light or glare? LS. Most of Dublin's three Planning Areas are developed with urban uses or parks that contain sources of Iight and glare. The City also provides lighting along public streets. Development allowed under the General Plan would result in incremental increases in new sources of light and glare within the community, The City has developed standard conditions of approval that are routinely applied to new development proposals to address Iight and glare. The standard conditions of approval include requiring photometric plans to ensure adequate, uniform lighting levels that do not spill over onto adjacent properties; requiring that all light fixtures be oriented downwards and the light source shielded from direct off -site viewing; and, prohibiting the use of reflective finishes or reflective glass on the exterior of buildings. The proposed General Plan revisions would not change or affect these conditions and would be a less than significant impact. City of Dublin Page 28 Initial Study /General Plan Update February 2013 2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources Project Impacts a -c) Convert Prime .Farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning or uses, conflict with a Williamson Act contract or convert prime farmland to a non - agricultural use? NI. The Eastern Extended Planning Area and Western Extended Planning Area contain roperties planned for agricultural within the Rural Residential /Agriculture bUR ) land use designation. This designation allows for animal grazing, crop production and similar agricultural uses on large lots. It is likely that one or more Williamson Act contracts exist in the Western Extended Planning Area and Eastern Extended Planning Area. No agricultural lands, agricultural uses, agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts are present in the Primary Planning Area. There would be no impacts with respect to this topic since the proposed General Plan revisions would not change or affect any land use and would not authorize urban uses anywhere that it is not already planned. Existing Rural Residential/ Agriculture designations in the north and east portions of eastern Dublin would also not be affected. Agricultural resources would also be protected by adherence to Guiding and Implementing policies contained in the Conservation Element and the Parks and Open Space Element, The Conservation Element directs the City to prevent premature urbanization of agricultural lands. The Parks and Open Space Element states that current Williamson Act Contracts may remain in force for as long as desired by the affected land owner and the City of Dublin, generally, does not support early cancellation of such contracts. However, if early cancellation of a contract is desired, necessary findings are required to be made. With the proposed General Plan revisions, future urban development would be as foreseen by the existing unchanged land use designations, the revisions would have no impact on agricultural zoning, agricultural uses, Williamson Act contracts or vacant prime agricultural land in the City of Dublin. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to a non forest use? NI. No significant forested land exists in Dublin and no impact would result with respect to this topic. Oak woodlands that do exist would be protected by adherence to Guiding and Implementing Policies contained in the Conservation Element. These Guiding Policies direct the City to protect oak woodlands, especially oak woodlands in the Western Extended Planning Area. e) Involve other changes which, due to their location or nature, could result of forest land to a non forest use? NI. See item "d," above. City of Dublin Page 29 Initial Study /General Plan Update February 2013 3. Air Quality Pro a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? NI. Future development envisioned in the General Plan is included within current land use projections prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), which are used for air quality emissions included in the Bay Area Air Quality District's Clean Air Plan. As noted in the Project Description, revisions to the Elements would not increase the number of residential dwellings in Dublin or the amount of non - residential development, Policies and programs contained in the Community Design and Sustainability Element will assist in improving local air quality by furthering energy conservation and water conservation, No impacts are therefore anticipated with respect to conflicts to or obstructions of the Clean Air Plan. b,c) Would the project violate any air qualihj standards or result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? NI. The General Plan revisions would not directly result in new development or construction that would generate air pollutants that would violate any air quality standards on a project or cumulative level. No impact would result with respect to this topic. In accordance with past practice, all future development projects submitted to the City of Dublin for approval will continue to be individually reviewed to confirm compliance with applicable air quality standards and, if necessary, identify and implement specific methods to ensure air quality standard compliance. d) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations? NI. No new dwelling units or other structures that could be occupied by sensitive receptor populations (senior citizens, chronically ill individuals, preschool children, etc.) would be directly constructed as a result of approving the General Plan revisions. Future individual projects containing sensitive receptors located near sources of major pollutants (generally freeways, arterial roadways and similar generators) will continue to be reviewed by the City of Dublin to ensure that: a) the location of future projects on individual sites will minimize air quality impacts to sensitive receptors, and b) appropriate on -site pollutant control features, such as air conditioning systems, will be included with such developments. This review will take place as part of the normal and customary City of Dublin review process, including but not limited to PD -Stage 2 Development Plans and /or applications for Site Development Review permits. No significant impacts would therefore result with respect to air quality impacts on sensitive receptors. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? NI. The General Plan revisions would not cause the construction of new development that would result in new uses that would emit objectionable odors. No impacts are therefore anticipated with respect to this topic. City of Dublin Page 30 Initial Study /General Plan Update February 2013 4. Biological Resources Project Impacts a-0 Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, special-status species riparian habitat or wetlands or other sensitive natural community through removal, filling or other means? LS. Adoption of the General Plan revisions would not directly impact candidate species, sensitive species, special- status or other protected plant or wildlife species. Future development projects that could be constructed in the City of Dublin are subject to policies contained in the Conservation Element. This Element contains both Guiding and Implementing Policies on a City -wide basis to protect stream corridors and riparian vegetation, provisions for erosion and siltation control and protection of oak woodlands. Protection for candidate, sensitive and special- status plant and wildlife species is also provided by a number of policies and action programs set forth in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The above policies are unchanged from existing policies and would not be affected by any of the proposed General Plan revisions. No significant biological resources are located in the Downtown Dublin Specific PIan area or in the rest of the Primary Planning Area. Biological resources in much of the Western Extended Planning Area are protected by the Urban Limit Line development prohibition and restrictions in the Schaefer Ranch approvals. Future development projects submitted for approval to the City of Dublin will continue to be reviewed by the City to ensure compliance with all applicable local, state and federal requirements to protect candidate, sensitive, special - status and other protected biological species. Less- than - significant impacts are anticipated with respect to this topic. d) Interfere substantially with movement of native fish or wildlife species? LS. New development is subject to adherence to Guiding and Implementing Policies contained in the Conservation Element that mandate protection of stream corridors and riparian vegetation, and thus the movement of fish or wildlife species. As noted above, all future development projects that contain wetlands, other waters or riparian habitat will be required to be consistent with Dublin General Plan policies, as well as other state and federal regulations protecting wetlands and other waters. The proposed General Plan revisions would not change or affect any of the existing policy or regulatory protections. e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? NI. The City of Dublin lies within the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy ( EACCS) planning area. The EACCS is a Habitat Conservation area. The General Plan revisions will be consistent with local City of Dublin biological resource protection policies, as well as applicable objectives contained in the EACCS document. Key objectives of the EACCS include comprehensive conservation of special - status species in eastern Alameda County, contribution City of Dublin Rage 31 Initial Study /General Plan update February 2013 to recovery of threatened species and others. Future development is required to comply with all City policies, ordinances and requirements protecting biological resources, including impacts to heritage frees. No impacts would therefore result as the proposed General Plan revisions would not change or affect these provisions. 5. Cultural Resources Project Impacts a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? LS. Although Dublin is a relatively new community, a number of important historic resources exist within the Dublin Planning Area. The largest concentration of historic resources is found in the original settlement area of Dublin, generally located north of the I- -580 freeway and west of San Ramon Road in the Primary Planning Area. Now included in the City's Heritage Park and Museum, major historic structures include the Murray Schoolhouse, St. Raymond's church and Green's Store, as well as other older structures. Other potentially significant historic structures and related resources have been identified in the Fallon Village project area and are subject to protective conditions adopted with the Fallon Village approvals. The Conservation Element also includes existing mandates for the City to preserve historic structures, including Green's Store. The proposed General Plan revisions would not affect adherence to General Plan standards and applicable state law; therefore, no impacts are anticipated to historic structures. b -d) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or paleontological resources, or human remains that may be interred outside of aformal cemetery? NI. The Primary Planning Area is fully developed, so no archeological resources are likely to remain. In any case, the City's standard conditions of approval along with Chapter 8.48 (Archaeological Resources Regulations) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance require stop -work and protective measures consistent with direction in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (e.g., section 150645), which would not be affected by the proposed General Plan revisions. Therefore, there would be no impact to archeological, paleontological, Native American, buried human remains or other historic resource in any of the planning areas. 6. Geology and Soils Project pacts a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or landslides? LS. The General Plan would allow construction of new dwellings -- and non - residential structures within the City of Dublin based on existing land City of Dublin Page 32 Initial Study /General Plan Update February 2013 use designations, which will be unchanged. Potential impacts related to soil, geologic and seismic conditions on future construction are addressed by adherence to the Seismic Safety and Safety Element of the Dublin General Plan. This Element includes existing policies related to groundshaking, ground rupture, and soil -based hazards, such as liquefaction and landslides. Guiding policies in the Seismic Safety and Safety Element state that "geological hazards shall be mitigated or development shall be located away from geological hazards in order to preserve life, protect property and reasonably limit the financial risks to the City of Dublin and other public agencies that would result from damage to poorly located public facilities." Other provisions of the Seismic Safety and Safety Element continue to require geotechnical analyses for proposed subdivisions and other developments, especially for subdivisions proposed in hillside areas. The Seismic Safety and Safety Element continues to require the City to prepare and periodically update an Earthquake Response Plan with evacuation routes. With adherence to the Guiding and Implementing Policies contained in the Seismic Safety and Safety Element for major development programs in the community, existing policies and protections related to seismic activity, landslides and similar soil hazards will be maintained for new development. The proposed General Plan revisions will not change or affect these provisions and the impact is less - than- significant. b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and /or the loss of topsoil? IS, Development that would be constructed in the community pursuant to the General Plan will be regulated by the Conservation Element that continues to require protection of Stream Corridors and Riparian Vegetation to minimize erosion into local creeks in the Dublin Planning Area. The same Element includes existing Guiding and Implementing Policies to minimize erosion into local bodies of water and to undertake erosion control methods. In addition, development projects are required to adhere to Best Management Practices (BMPs) as required by the Alameda County Clean 'Water program and enforced by the City of Dublin as part of normal and customary review of individual development projects will ensure insignificant impacts regarding substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. These BMPs typically include but are not limited to installation of silt fences, sandbags and similar measures to minimize substantial erosion and loss of topsoil. The proposed General Plan revisions would not change or affect existing policies or regulatory requirements. This impact would therefore be less - than - significant. c -d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive and that could result in potential lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? IS. The Seismic Safety and Safety Element of the Dublin General Plan continues to require geotech dcal reports for new development proposals and ensures that any issues related to unstable soils, liquefaction, lateral spreading, landslide and other soil hazards will be addressed. The proposed General Plan revisions make no changes to policies procedures, therefore impact is less-than-significant. s City of Dube an ro... s• �- Page 33 Initial Study /General Plan Update February 2013 e) Have soils incapable of supporting on -site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI. All new projects are required by the City of Dublin to connect to the local sewer system, maintained by the Dublin San Ramon Services District. No impacts would therefore result with regard to septic systems. 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Impacts a,b Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? NI. Development allowed pursuant to the General Plan would increase the amount of greenhouse gasses (carbon dioxide and similar pollutants) into the atmosphere. To reduce these anticipated emissions, the City committed to reducing community- wide GHG emissions by 207a below business-as-usual GHGs emissions by 2020 through the adoption of a Climate Action Plan (CAP). The CAP was adopted by the City of Dublin in October 2010. The City expects the GHG reduction target to be achieved through a combination of the reduction measures included in the CAP and state initiatives. Since land use assumptions, population density, the amount of non - residential construction and the population build -out to the General Plan horizon year are the same as used as the basis of the CAP, there would be no impact with respect to generation of greenhouses gasses. 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Project Impacts a) Create significant hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal hazardous materials? LS. The Land Use Element would continue to allow existing and new light industrial and similar uses, some of which use, generate, transport or store potentially significant quantities of hazardous materials. These developments would be required to comply with the Seismic Safety and Safety Element that regulates hazardous materials in Dublin. The use, transport, storage and disposal of hazardous materials are also extensively regulated by other state and federal agencies, including but not limited to Caltrans, the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. With adherence to the Seismic Safety and Safety Element of the General Plan and regulations of other a envies, a less -than- significant impact is anticipated with respect to this topic as the proposed General Plan revisions do not change or affect these policies or regulations. b, c) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accidental conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment or emit hazardous materials or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or wastes within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school LS. The General Plan covers currently vacant sites within the City City of Dublin Page 34 Initial StudylGeneral Plan Update February 2013 of Dublin that could develop under the auspices of this General Plan, as well as developed sites that could redevelop to a differing land use as identified in the General Plan. Developed properties that could redevelop may contain some level of hazardous materials as a result of existing or previous uses or activities on that site or sites. As part of the normal and customary City of Dublin demolition permit process, future site - specific applicants roust obtain clearance from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District regarding the presence of asbestos building materials, lead based paints and any other potentially hazardous materials that could be emitted into the atmosphere during building demolition. If such materials are found, they would be remediated prior to commencement of demolition activities. For currently vacant sites that develop, the City of Dublin normally and customarily requires completion of environmental site investigations for the potential presence of hazard materials that could be released into the atmosphere during grading activities. Property owners will then be required to remediate any hazardous conditions if any are identified. The proposed General Plan revisions would not change or affect any of the above review and remediation provisions, therefore, the impact is less than significant No existing or planned public schools are located within a one - quarter mile radius of an identified hazardous materials site, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, based on the Cortese List of contaminated sites in Dublin as of January 30, 2013. d) Be listed on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied on the Cortese List and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or environment? LS. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Cortese List of hazardous sites identifies only one potentially contaminated site in Dublin as of January 30, 2013. That site is the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Parks RFTA), also known as Camp Parks, which is a federal facility and not subject to the City's General Plan or other land use regulatory authority. New development in the areas around Parks RFTA would continue to be subject to the City's practice of requiring environmental site investigations. The proposed General Plan revisions would not affect either DTSC or normal City procedures; therefore, the impact is less than significant e -f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? LS. A portion of the Eastern Extended Planning Area is located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the Livermore Municipal Airport, which is located south of the I -580 freeway in the City of Livermore. Future development projects constructed pursuant to the General Plan within the AIA are required to be referred to the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) to ensure consistency with the Alameda County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ( ALUCP). Existing land uses within the AIA are consistent with the ALUCP and would not change as part of the proposed General PIan revisions. This is anticipated to be a less- than - significant impact, g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? NI, Future development that d e to be required to woo occur consistent with the General Plan wool,,,,,,, continue ^� City of Dublin Page 35 initial Study /General Plan Update February 2013 be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan that also addresses emergency evacuation. Private development projects proposed for City approval will continue to be reviewed by the Dublin Police Services Department and the Alameda County Fire Department to ensure that no blockage of emergency evacuation plans would occur. No impacts are anticipated with regard to this topic. h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? LS. A number of properties are located within urban/ wildland interface areas where there is a moderate to high potential for wildland fires, especially the Western Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Extended Planning Area, both of which border open space under Alameda County jurisdiction. Future development constructed in Dublin must comply with the Seismic Safety and Safety Element. This Element continues to require special precautions against fire as a condition of approval for development in Extended Planning Areas where such development interfaces with open space. The Seismic Safety and Safety Element also states that the City will continue to enforce wildland urban interface regulations. The proposed General Plan revisions would not change any of the existing policies or requirements; therefore, the impact of wildland fire will be less- than - significant. 9. Hydrology and Water Quality Project Impacts a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? NT. New construction anticipated as part of the General Plan revisions is the same as for the current General Plan and has been included in the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) wastewater master plan. The District holds necessary waste discharge permits from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and other applicable agencies. Approval and implementation of the General Plan would not exceed waste discharge requirements imposed on DSRSD by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (source: Stan Kolodzie, DSRSD, 2/6/13). No impacts are expected with respect to this topic. b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? Nf. The primary source of water to developments in Dublin is imported surface water supplied by DSRSD and Zone 7 that does not primarily rely on local groundwater. The General Plan revisions would not affect any existing groundwater conservation policies or programs and there would therefore be no impact with lowering of the water table or substantially depleting groundwater recharge areas as part of the General Plan revisions. c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including strearnbed courses such that substantial siltation or erosion would occur? NI. The General Plan would result in construction on currently vacant or underutilized properties within the Dublin Planning Area, City of Dublin 6 3 Page Initial Study /General Plan update February e 3 the same as under the existing General Plan, This construction could result in a greater quantity of stormwater runoff as a result of increasing the amount of impervious surfaces. Such new development is regulated by the Conservation Element. This section contains Guiding Policies to maintain natural hydrologic systems and the adoption of regulations on steep slopes. Implementing Policies require that the City enforce the requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit for stormwater. The above policies are unchanged from existing policies. The City of Dublin enforces Best Management Practices included in the Alameda County Clean Water PIan to minimize siltation and erosion from individual sites. These include both construction and post- construction BMPs, including but not limited to, requiring installation of silt fences and straw bales on construction sites and frequent sweeping of parking areas, covering of solid waste dumpsters and other post- construction measures. Implementation of BMPs is required for all new development. There would be no significant impacts from altered drainage patterns, substantial amounts of siltation or erosion because all existing policies and BMP implementation would continue unchanged and would not be affected by the proposed General Plan revisions. d,e) Substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project site, create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add substantial amounts of polluted runoff? NI. Refer to item "c," above. f) Substantially degrade water qualihj? NI. The City of Dublin requires all individual development projects, including future development under the General Plan, to meet Best Management Practices to ensure that water quality would be protected. Best Management Practices are described above in Section 8c of this Initial Study. These existing requirements will not be affected by the proposed General Plan revisions; no impact is anticipated with regard to this topic. g-i) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood .insurance Rate Map, or impede or redirect flood flow, including dam failure? NI, No housing sites identified in the General Plan are located in a 100 -year flood hazard area so there would be no impact with respect to this topic. This is based on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps Community Panel Numbers 06001C0302G, 06001CQ304G, 06001C0306G, 06001C0308G, 06001C0309G, 06001C0326G, 06001C0328G, 06001CO329G dated August 3, 2009. These maps are incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and are available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. The revisions to the General Plan would not change any existing land use designations to or from residential land use and would not place housing within a flood hazard area. Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? LS. There are expected to be no impacts with regard to seiche, tsunami or mudflows, under the existing General Plan or the General Plan revisions since development sites would be located inland from major bodies of water, primarily San Francisco Bay. Protection of public and private improvements in all Dublin Planning Areas will be provided by adherence to the Seismic Safe and Safe Element. _t, Safety ....ment. This Element requires all structures to be City of Dublin Initial Study /General Plan Update Page 37 February 2013 designed in accordance with the Dublin Building Code and Dublin Grading Ordinance and that geotechnical reports be prepared for site- specific development proposals to minimize impacts related to seismic action and hillside slope failure. The proposed General Plan revisions would not change the requirement for adherence to these General Plan policies; therefore, this impact would be less-than- significant. 70. Land Use and Planning Project Tin acts a) Physically divide an established community? NI. The General Plan revisions do not include any Guiding or Implementing Policies that would directly or indirectly result in the physical division of an existing, established community. Existing policies regarding "'complete streets," sustainability and the adopted Climate Action Plan focus on increasing connectivity within the City and between developments. The proposed General Plan revisions make no changes to these existing policies other than to include the previously adopted "complete streets" policy into the General Plan. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated with respect to this topic. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? NI. The General Plan revisions continue to provide an integrated, correlated set of Guiding and Implementing Policies to protect environmental resources in the Dublin Planning Area. By State law, the General Plan is the primary and important policy document governing the developments conservation and protection of resources. No impact would result with respect to this topic. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NI. See Checklist Item 4 f. 11. Mineral Resources Project Impacts a, b Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? NI. No impacts would occur to any mineral resources, since no such resources are identified in the Dublin General Plan. 1,2. Noise Project Impacts a) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard: LS. The Noise Element in Chapter R of the General Plan identifies existing and anticipated noise in the community as a result of vehicle traffic and stationary noise, such as industrial and City of Dublin Page 38 Initial Study /General Plan Update February 2013 mechanical equipment. The Noise Element also contains standards of interior and exterior noise exposure levels by land use type. The Noise Element notes that traffic is the primary generator of noise in Dublin. Other noise sources in the community include noise from BART operations and stationary noise sources associated with land uses and outdoor activities, Future uses in the community could be exposed to noise levels in excess of noise exposure standards contained in the Noise Element. Future site- specific developments would continue to be subject to the Noise Elements guiding and implementing policies which require new development proposals in Dublin to be reviewed by an acoustical consultant and appropriate mitigation provided as feasible. All of the above are existing policies would remain in the General Plan and would prevent the exposure of future residents to excessive noise levels. The proposed General Plan revisions would not change the existing policies; therefore, the impact would be less - than - significant. b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? NI.. It is unlikely that construction of future development allowed under the General Plan would result in significant levels of vibration, since, according to the Dublin Building Official (Gregory Shreeve, 2/4/13) normal construction methods used in Dublin typically do not employ construction techniques that generate excessive groundborne vibration. The revisions to the General Plan would not affect construction techniques; therefore, no impacts are anticipated with regard to this topic. c,d) Substantial permanent or temporary increases in permanent in ambient noise levels? LS. Approval of the General Plan revisions would not directly result in substantial permanent or temporary increases in ambient noise levels. However, future land uses that would be built under the auspices of the General Plan would include residential, commercial, public and other uses in all three Planning Areas that would generate traffic and also noise. Future development would be re quired to have individual acoustic assessments per the implementing policies of the Noise Element to assess noise impacts and ensure that methods to reduce noise to City standards are included as part of the project. e,f) In terms of short -term construction noise impacts, the City of Dublin will continue to review individual development plans through the Site Development Review (SDR) process and include necessary conditions of approval to limit hours of construction so as to minimize noise on adjacent properties. The proposed General Plan revisions do not change existing Noise Element policies, as noted above; therefore, project impacts related to permanent and temporary noise generation is expected to be less - than - significant. Be located within an airport land use plan area, within two miles of a public or private airport or airstrip? LS. A number of properties within the Eastern Extended Planning Area north of I -580, south of Central Parkway, and east of Tassajara Road to the eastern City limit line are located in the Airport Influence Area (AIA) for the Livermore Municipal ALtz ort, which is located south of I -580 within the City of City of Dublin Initial Study /General Plan Update Page 39 February 2013 Livermore ( source: Livermora Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 2012). These sites will continue to be designated for non - residential uses. Individual site - specific development proposals within the AIA are required to be referred to the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission for a consistency determination with the Livermore Municipal Airport's Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan adopted the California Office of Noise Control noise exposure standards are generally consistent with City of Dublin noise standards. The proposed General flan revisions would not affect any of the above policies or procedures. Overall, impacts related to aircraft noise is anticipated to be less -than- significant. 13. Population and Housing Project Impacts a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? NT. Future development under the revised General Plan would be the same as would result from the existing General Plan. No changes to land uses, development intensity, population build -out or the amount of non-residential development is proposed as part of the General Plan revisions. No impacts are anticipated. b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people requiring replacement housing? NI. Although adoption of the General PIan revisions would result in new urban development in the community based on the unchanged land use designations, the General Plan contains no policies or proposals that would result in substantial displacement of existing dwellings or people. No impacts are anticipated. 14. Public Services Project Impacts, a) Fire protection? LS. The City of Dublin contracts with Alameda County Fire Department for fire suppression, emergency medical, rescue and fire inspection services. Fire stations are located are located at 5325 Broder Avenue (Station # 15), 7494 Donohue Drive (Station #1b), 6200 Madigan (Station # 17) and 4800 Fallon Road (Station # 18). Additional development that could occur in Dublin may result in an increase in the number of calls for emergency services. However, such additional calls would not be greater than currently anticipated by the Fire Department, since the total amount of development anticipated by the General Plan build -out horizon is no greater than what is currently allowed under the existing General Plan. Development projects in the City are required to pay fire service facility City of Dublin Page 40 Initial Study /General Plan Update February 2013 fees to provide for upgraded equipment and other fire service, which fees are based on current General Plan projections, which are unchanged for the project. A less -than- significant impact is anticipated with respect to provision of fire service. b) Police protection? LS. Similar to fire service, there would likely be an increase in the number of calls for service to the Dublin Police Services Department based on an increase in development under the auspices of the General Plan. However, such an increase would not be greater than currently anticipated, since there would be no increase in the future build -out of the community. A less -than- significant impact is anticipated with respect to police service. c) Schools? LS. Public educational services in Dublin are provided by the Dublin Unified School District. The District maintains a number of K -12 schools throughout Dublin. There are also a number of private educational facilities in the community. Future residential development under the General Plan would generate additional school-aged children that would need to be accommodated by local schools; however, new residential development is subject to statutory school impact fees which will provide for new public educational facilities in the community. The Schools, Public Lands and Utilities Element addresses public schools in the community. This Element includes Guiding and Implementing Policies dealing with public schools. These policies mandate that the City cooperate with the Dublin Unified School District to ensure provision of adequate school facilities in both Extended Planning Areas and to ensure preservation of surplus school sites. Overall, the General Plan revisions would have a less - than- significant impact with respect to public schools since existing policies and development'potential would not change under the proposed General Plan revisions. d) Maintenance of publie facilities, including roads? LS. Any new public facilities that would be constructed as part of any future development would be constructed to City engineering and construction standards so that a less than- significant impact would occur. e) Solid waste generation? LS, See item 17, below. 15. Recreation Projects acts a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? LS. New dwellings and other development would require new or expanded parks in order to maintain the City's park goal. City park goals are to provide a total of 5 usable acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, which includes 3.5 acres of larger community parks per 1,000 residents and 1.5 acres of smaller neighborhood City of Dublin 41 Page Initial Study /General Plan Update February a 41 parks or squares per 1,000 residents. The City also encourages development of an integrated trail network and other open spaces that are not included in the park ratio goals (Source: City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan, February, 2004). The City of Dublin requires housing developers to either dedicate parkland to the City to meet City goals or pay an in -lieu fee that allows the City to purchase parkland. The Parks and Open Space Element includes guiding policies that, continue to direct the City to expand park area throughout the Primary and Extended Planning Areas to serve new development. as well as to maintain and improve existing outdoor facilities; continue to mandate that additional parks be provided in the Eastern Extended Planning Area as well as a trail system along Tassajara Creek and within natural creek areas; and, continue to require a north - south trail link across the Western Extended Planning Area as well as other local trails in the western portion of Dublin. Regional parks in the Dublin Planning Area are provided by the East Bay Regional Park District. The proposed revisions to the Parks and Open Space Element include new implementing policies to maintain and periodically update the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and establishing the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as the action program for preserving and providing opext space for outdoor recreation. No changes are proposed to the City's park dedication requirement. These new policies expand and supplement existing policies; therefore, project impacts to local and regional parks would be less - than - significant. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities? NI. The Parks and Open Space Element continues to mandate that the City of Dublin expand park area throughout the Primary and Extended Planning Areas to serve new development and directs the City to acquire and improve parklands in conformance with the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The General Plan revisions make no change to these existing policies; therefore, no impacts would occur with respect to this topic. 16. Transportation /Traffic Project Impacts a, b Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial relative to existing traffic load and street; or exceed LOS standards established by the County CMA for designated roads? LS. There would likely be increases in traffic on local roads, regional roads and freeways as a result of implementing the General Plan revisions, the same as for the existing General Plan. The Circulation and Scenic Highways Element includes roadway standards that mandates local roadways be designed to accommodate forecasted traffic loads, minimize traffic congestion during peak periods and that adequate road City of Dublin Page 42 Initial Study /General Plan Update February 2013 rights -of-way be reserved for future roadways. Other Guiding Policies state that City shall consider the Tri -Valley Transportation Plan and that the City shall strive to phase roadway improvements so that intersections operate at LOS "D" or better, although certain intersections in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area are exempt from this Policy. In terms of regional circulation, the Circulation and Scenic Highways EIement states that the City will comply with provisions of the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) Congestion Management Program and will review individual site - specific development projects to ensure compliance with this program. This Element also states that the City will work to improve freeway access. The Land Use Element revisions would not increase the build -out population of Dublin or the amount of non-residential square footage over the current General Plan. Revisions in the Circulation and Scenic PTighways Element add the adopted Complete Streets Policy into the General Plan, reflect agency name changes, and remove detailed roadway design standards that are more appropriately located in administrative standards. The General Plan revisions are minor and generally organizational in nature; they do not affect traffic demand or proposed roadway or other improvements, nor existing policies for compliance with regional regulatory and review standards. Therefore, project impacts related to traffic increases would be less-than-significant. C) Result in a change of air traffic patterns? NI. The General Plan revisions would have no impact on air traffic patterns and do not include any policies or programs that would change or modify any existing air traffic pattern. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? LS. Future individual development projects that would be proposed in Dublin under the General Plan revisions would continue to be reviewed by City of Dublin staff to ensure that the City public works and engineering standards are met and no traffic or transportation design or incompatibility hazards would be created. This would be a less - than - significant impact as V proposed General Plan revisions would not affect existing review procedures or standards. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? NI.. No impacts would occur with regard to emergency access. Future development would be on lands already planned for urban development and subject to City design standards for streets and other improvements. Furthermore, any future construction is routinely reviewed by the Dublin Police Services Department and Alameda County Fire Department to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided. The General Plan revisions would not change these standards or procedures. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? NI. There would be no impacts with respect to this topic. The Circulation and City of Dublin Page 43 Initial StudylGeneral Plan Update February 2013 Scenic Highways Element contains alternative transportation policies to promote local transit use and walkability of enhanced pedestrian areas 17. Utilities and Service Systems Project impacts a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? NI, The General Plan revisions do not increase the build -out population or the amount of non- residential square footages contained in the existing General Plan, which as been used as the basis of the Dublin San Ramon Services District Wastewater Master Plan. District officials have indicated that wastewater collection, treatment and disposal service is based on the current General Plan land use, density nd build-out assumptions. Since these assumptions have not changed with the General Plan revisions, no impacts would occur with respect to this topic (source: Stan Kolodzie, DSRSD, 2/6/13). b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? NI. Based on recent discussions with DSRSD staff (Stan Kolodzie, 2/ 6/13), the District has made projections in their 2010 Urban Water Management PIan and Wastewater Master Plan based on the current General Plan. Per DSRSD staff, adequate water and wastewater treatment and disposal capacity exist to serve the build -out population of Dublin set forth in the current General Plan. Since the General Plan revisions would not increase the amount of development or population over current assumptions, no impact would result with respect to this topic. c) Require new storm drainage facilities? NI. Refer to Section 9c of this Initial Study. d) Are sufficient water supplies available? NI. Based on discussions with DSRSD staff, as noted above, the District has adequate water supplies to serve the current General Plan buildout for the City of Dublin, including both residential and non - residential development. Since the General Plan revisions would not increase the number of residences or the amount of nonresidential development from current General Plan assumptions, no impact would result. e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? LS. See item "a," above. f) Solid waste disposal? LS. The City's three Planning Areas are located within the franchise area of Amador Valley Industries that provides residential and commercial solid waste pick-up and recycling services. Discussions with the staff of Altamont Landfill (the ultimate disposal site for Dublin and other Tri- Valley communities) indicate that adequate permitted solid waste disposal capacity is available for 25 to 30 years (source. Diana Nural, Waste Management, Inc, 12/14/12). This impact would be less- than - significant. g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste NI. The existing service provider, Amador Valley Industries, will ensure adherence to City of Dublin Page 44 Initial Study /General Plan Update February w13 federal, state and local solid waste regulations. No impact would result with respect to this topic. 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) roes the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal comrnunity, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No. The preceding analysis indicates that the General Plan revisions would not have a significant adverse impact on cultural resources or have the potential to restrict the range of rare or endangered species, based on existing applicable biological resource Guiding and Implementing Policies that are also contained in the Conservation Element, as well as extensive regulation at federal and state levels. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). No, cumulative impacts of the General Plan revisions have been identified in this Initial Study. Adherence to applicable Guiding and Implementing Polices, as well as applicable federal, state and local regulations (including the City's specific plans, zoning and development regulations, and past practices) would not be changed from existing provisions and procedures; therefore, no significant cumulative impacts would occur from the proposed General Plan revisions. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. Based on the preceding Initial Study, no substantial effects to human beings, either directly or indirectly have been identified from the proposed revisions. City of Dublin Page 45 Initial Study /General Plan Update February 2013 Initial Study Preparers Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager and principal author Jane Maxwell, report graphics Agencies and Organizations Consulted The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study: Cihj of Dublin: Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney Gregory Shreeve, Building Official Dublin San Damon Services District Stan Kolozdie, staff engineer Waste Management, ,Inc. Diana Nural References California Department of Toxic Substances Control, website, January 2013 Final Services District, Urban Water Management Plan. 201Update, Dublin San Ramon tct, June 2011 Dublin General Plan. City of Dublin, Updated through 3/ 23/12 Dublin Historic Resources Identification Project Page &Turnbull, 2004 Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission, August 201 Parks and Recreation Master Plan City of Dublin, 2006 update Sewer System Management Plan Dublin San Ramon Services District, updated September 2012 City of Dublin Page 46 Initial Study /General Plan Update February 2013