HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.14 Dublin Crossing Development Agreementor
19 82
/ii � 111
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
January 19, 2016
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
CITY CLERK
File #600 -60
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager "
Amendment No. 2 to the Development Agreement Between the City of Dublin
and Dublin Crossing LLC Related to the Dublin Crossing Project
Prepared by Roger Bradley, Assistant to the City Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On October 20, 2015, the City Council directed Staff to process minor modifications to the
Dublin Crossing project approvals, which includes changes to the Arnold Road frontage and
elimination of the requirement to underground PG &E electric transmission lines. The Developer
(Dublin Crossing LLC) and Staff agreed upon certain community benefits that would be provided
in exchange for the City's approval of these revisions. Staff has approved the minor
modifications contingent on the City Council's approval of an amendment to the Development
Agreement incorporating the changes and the community benefits. The City Council will
consider the approval of a resolution adopting a CEQA Addendum, and the introduction of an
Ordinance Approving Amendment No. 2 to the Development Agreement between the City of
Dublin and Dublin Crossing LLC.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Implementation of the changes would have various financial benefits. The Developer would pay
the City $6 million in additional Community Benefit Payments, and would accelerate the timing
of certain other Community Benefit Payments due under the Development Agreement. In
addition, the Developer would pay the Civic Center component of the Public Facilities Fees in
advance, rather than with each building permit. Finally, Dublin Crossing LLC will be responsible
for making certain improvements to the potential school /park site, to be owned by the City,
within the Dublin Crossing community.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution Adopting a CEQA Addendum for
Amendments to the Development Agreement Related to the Dublin Crossing Project, and waive
the reading and INTRODUCE the Ordinance Approving Amendment No. 2 to the Development
Agreement between the City of Dublin and Dublin Crossing LLC related to the Dublin Crossing
Project.
Page 1 of 4 ITEM NO. 4.14
`Reviewed By
Assistant City Manager
DESCRIPTION:
At its meeting of October 20, 2015, the City Council considered proposed amendments to the
Dublin Crossing project and directed Staff to work on various non - substantial amendments to
the Development Agreement with Dublin Crossing LLC (the Developer). The October 20, 2015
Staff Report is attached as Attachment 1.
Specifically outlined within Attachment 1, Dublin Crossing LLC requested that the City revise
two project components: 1) the undergrounding of high voltage utility transmission lines along
both Arnold Road and Scarlett Drive; and 2) the undergrounding of a drainage channel along
Arnold Road. The agencies with direct authority and control over these items had indicated to
the Developer that approval to underground these items would not likely be granted. As a result,
Staff negotiated revisions to the project and certain community benefits relating from these
changes. The proposed terms were shared with the City Council at the October 20, 2015
meeting, and the City Council directed Staff to prepare the amendments to the Development
Agreement to effectuate the changes.
The following summarizes the proposed revisions:
1. Community Benefit Payments
a. Additional Community Benefit Payments under the Development Agreement of
$6,000,000 payable as follows-
i. $3 million due June 30, 2018
ii. $1 million due June 30, 2019
iii. $1 million due June 30, 2020
iv. $1 million due June 30, 2021
b. Acceleration of $15,000,000 in Community Benefit Payments to June 30, 2016.
i. $10,000,000 from August 15, 2016 to June 30, 2016.
ii. $5,000,000 from August 15, 2018 to June 30, 2016.
Benefit: Provides general fund revenue for City projects and community needs.
2. Purchase of a Wetlands Mitigation Easement: The Developer will consider purchasing
rights to place a wetland mitigation easement on a City -owned parcel adjacent to the
Iron Horse Trail south of Dublin Blvd.
Benefit: Potentially creates economic value from a City asset with little current value.
3. Acceleration of the Civic Center Component of the Public Facilities Fee: The
Developer will pay the full fee associated with 1,600 units at the City Public Facilities
Fee rate effective October 15, 2015. The payment will be due either June 30, 2016, or
at the final appeal period, whichever is later.
Benefit: Provides cash flow for Civic Center improvements.
Page 2 of 4
4. Improvements /Temporary Maintenance of School /Park Site: The Developer will fund
and improve four acres of hydroseed turf on the Dublin Crossing future school /park site
(to be owned by the City) within 18 months of acquisition from the Army (acquisition
anticipated in 2017). The Developer will maintain the improvements for two years.
Benefit: Results in additional improvements and provides two years of maintenance at no
cost to the City.
5. Improvement of School /Park Site: The Developer will fund and improve the curb,
gutter, and the park strip around the Dublin Crossing future school /park site within 18
months of acquisition from Army. The Developer will maintain the improvements for
two years.
Benefit: Results in additional improvements and provides two years of maintenance at no
cost to the City.
6. Cooperation in Potential Expansion of Park: A third party, Scarlett Homes LLC, owns
land that the Developer requires to construct the Scarlett Drive extension. Only a
portion of Scarlett Homes LLC' s property, which would be acquired by the Developer,
is required for the roadway improvements, but the remaining portion could be
incorporated into the Dublin Crossing Park. The Developer will attempt to acquire the
entire parcel and, if successful, would dedicate it to the City for future park expansion
under certain conditions.
Benefit: Results in a larger park footprint at no additional cost to the City or the Public
Facilities Fee program.
As was noted in the October 20, 2015 Staff Report, Staff has the authority to approve the
removal of the undergrounding conditions described above. The amendment to the
Development Agreement, however, requires City Council approval. Because the amendments
are considered "insubstantial," the ordinary notice and hearing is not required. In order to
ensure that the City receives the negotiated community benefits in exchange for the approvals,
and to maintain a higher level of transparency, Staff's approvals were made contingent upon the
City Council's approval of the attached Development Agreement Amendment. Approval of the
amendment is the final implementation step of the process.
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Amendment through adoption of the
Ordinance (Attachment 2) and accompanying CEQA Addendum by Resolution (Attachment 3).
As discussed at the October 20, 2015 City Council meeting, it is proposed that the $15,000,000
in accelerated Community Benefit Payments be allocated to the buildout of space at the Public
Safety Complex, to which Dublin Police Services would be moved in its entirety. This would
provide much - needed space for Police Services, especially as its staffing and administrative
needs evolve through buildout of the community. Upon movement of Dublin Police Services to
the Public Safety Complex, Staff proposes that a portion of the remaining space at the Civic
Center, on the ground floor, be allocated to a Cultural Arts Center, which is one of the facilities
identified in the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Any remaining space would be used
to house administrative Staff. The Public Safety Complex and Cultural Arts Center construction
projects would be funded with the $15,000,000, with any remaining funds to be used for planned
improvements at the Dublin Sports Grounds. Staff is currently preparing information on the
Page 3 of 4
feasibility of implementing this recommendation, and expects to present the information to the
City Council for consideration in February 2016.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City prepared an Initial Study, dated January 5, 2016, to determine whether the standards
for subsequent or supplemental environmental review under CEQA are met, including whether
there could be significant environmental impacts occurring as a result of this project that are
new or substantially more severe than those already addressed in the Dublin Crossing
Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which was certified by the City Council on November 5,
2013 (Resolution 186 -13). The Initial Study concluded that the proposed project would not have
a new or substantially more severe significant effect on the environment than addressed in the
certified Dublin Crossing EIR, no significant information has arisen since the certification of the
EIR, and no other standards under CEQA that would require further environmental review have
been met. Therefore, an Addendum to the EIR was prepared documenting these facts. A
Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a CEQA Addendum for the Dublin
Crossing Specific Plan Substantial Conformance Determination, Finding of Compliance with the
Conditions of Approval for VTM 8150, and Amendment No. 2 to the Dublin Crossing
Development Agreement is included as Attachment 3 to this staff report, with the CEQA
Addendum included as Exhibit A and the required Statement of Overriding Considerations
included as Exhibit B to Attachment 3.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report — October 20, 2015, Item 8.3
2. Ordinance Approving Amendment No. 2 to the Development
Agreement between the City of Dublin and Dublin Crossing LLC
Related to the Dublin Crossing Project, and Exhibit A - Amendment
No. 2 to the Development Agreement
3. Resolution Adopting a CEQA Addendum for Amendments to the
Development Agreement Related to the Dublin Crossing Project
Page 4 of 4
or r�(r
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
October 20, 2015
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
CITY CLERK
File #640 -60
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager ' _ ., ... i, - ' --- I
Proposed Revisions to the Dublin Crossing Project and Related Community
Benefits
Prepared by Linda Smith, Assistant City Manager and Roger Bradley, Assistant
to the City Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will receive a report on two revisions to the Dublin Crossing Project proposed
by the developer. The modifications include changes to the Arnold Road frontage and
elimination of the requirement to underground the large PG &E electric transmission lines along
Arnold Road and along Scarlett Drive across Dublin Blvd. The developer (Dublin Crossing, LLC)
and City Staff have agreed upon community benefits (detailed in the Staff Report) that would be
provided in conjunction with the City's approval of the revisions. City Staff has the authority to
approve the revisions to the project and is seeking direction on whether it should implement the
proposed revisions.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Implementation of the changes would have various financial benefits. The developer would
make $6 million in additional Community Benefit Payments under the project's existing
Development Agreement. The developer would also accelerate the timing of certain other
Community Benefit Payments due under the Development agreement. In addition, the
developer would pay the Civic Center component of the public facility fees in advance, rather
than with each building permit. Finally, Dublin Crossing, LLC will be responsible for making
certain improvements to the potential school /park site, to be owned by the City, within the Dublin
Crossing community.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council direct Staff to proceed with implementing the proposed
changes to the project proposed by Dublin Crossing, LLC, including the additional community
benefits added to the development agreement.
Page 1 of 6 Il.:llachirr" uNl 1
I.
Reviewed By
Assistant City Manager
DESCRIPTION:
Dublin Crossing, LLC (Developer) has requested that the City consider revising two aspects of
the development of the Dublin Crossing Project. The revisions are related to the Arnold Road
frontage improvements and the undergrounding of the PG &E transmission lines along Arnold
Road and Scarlett Drive continuing across Dublin Blvd at both locations.
Arnold Road
Currently, the Plan anticipates the existing 30 -foot wide drainage channel along the west side of
Arnold Road would be undergrounded. This would allow for certain frontage improvements (5-
foot landscaped parkway, 8 -foot sidewalks, and a 10 -foot landscaped buffer). The resource
agencies (in particular the Regional Water Quality Control Board) have indicated to the
developer that they will most likely not issue a permit to underground the channel and would
prefer that the channel remain in place.
Accordingly, the developer is proposing to revise the Project to reflect the fact that the resource
agencies will not likely approve undergrounding the channel. Developer proposes to improve
the channel with native vegetation and develop a multi -use trail on the west4development -side
of the channel, as a means of preserving the "feel" of the originally proposed interface.
Staff has reviewed this request and, under the circumstances, supports it. While it would be
desirable to have the channel undergrounded to provide aesthetic and pedestrian benefits along
the west -side of Arnold Road, Staff believes that leaving the channel in place will create a
natural buffer between the Dublin Crossing development and the street. Disturbing the site and
the wildlife therein would also have an impact on the area. Additionally, the channel itself will be
naturalized and improved to become an attractive feature within the area, mitigating the visual
impact of the change. The Arnold Road plan, as presented within the Dublin Crossings Specific
Plan, is clearly defined as conceptual in nature, indicating that modifications were envisioned,
which may require different configurations to the roadway. Staff does not anticipate negative
impacts to automotive or pedestrian traffic as a result of the proposed changes. Staff will be
working with Developer to meet the intent of the conceptual improvements to Arnold Road.
Transmission Lines
The conditions of approval require the developer to underground utilities, including electrical
lines. The property contains high -power transmission lines along Arnold Road and along
Scarlett Drive with the lines continuing across Dublin Blvd (See Attachment 1 & 2) that the
conditions require be undergrounded. High voltage transmission lines are distinct from the
distribution lines that serve customers. Transmission lines span long distances and deliver
high - voltage power from generating stations (power plants and hydroelectric facilities) to
substations. Substations transform power to lower voltage for delivery to customers over
distribution lines.
It is much more costly to underground transmission lines. Developer has approached PG &E to
discuss the undergrounding of the utility lines on the project, as required by conditions of
Page 2 of 6
approval. PG &E has indicated that it is nearly impossible to place these large transmission lines
underground and would likely not responded favorably to the request. Neither the City nor the
Developer have the authority to force PG &E to allow the undergrounding to proceed. Thus,
Developer has requested that the City waive the requirement to underground the transmission
lines along Arnold Road and along Scarlett Drive and continuing across Dublin Blvd. However,
Developer is working with PG &E on the possibility of decommissioning the transmission lines
along Arnold Road, and if that is possible the lines be completely removed. Staff is supportive of
this request.
Staff has reviewed the proposed request and under the circumstances can support waiving the
undergrounding requirement as to the transmission lines along Arnold Road and along Scarlett
Drive.
Community Benefits
The Developer has offered to provide certain community benefits if the proposed changes are
implemented. The benefits are described below.
1. Community Benefit Payments
a. Additional Community Benefit Payments under the Development Agreement of
$6,000,000 payable as follows:
i. $3 million due June 30, 2018
ii. $1 million due June 30, 2019
iii. $1 million due June 30, 2020; and
iv. $1 million due June 30, 2021.
b. Acceleration of $15,000,000 in Community Benefit Payments to June 30, 2016:
i. $10,000,000 from August 15, 2016 to June 30, 2016.
ii. $5,000,000 from August 15, 2018 to June 30, 2016.
Benefit: Provides general fund revenue for City projects and community needs.
2. Purchase of Wetlands Mitigation Easement. Developer will purchase a wetland
mitigation easement from the City of Dublin on the City -owned parcel adjacent to the Iron
Horse Trail south of Dublin Blvd.
a. Final purchase price of mitigation easement/ endowment to be based upon recent
appraisal for wetland mitigation, estimated at $460 per linear foot. The funding
received would serve as an endowment to fund maintenance of the mitigation area
for City -owned wetlands in any future right -of -way.
Benefit: Creates economic value from City asset with little value.
3. Acceleration of Civic Center Component of Public Facilities Fee. Developer will pay the
full 1,600 units at the City public facility fee rate effective October 15, 2015, which
payment shall be due either June 30, 2016 or at the final appeal period /litigation
settlement of DAA (and SPA if necessary) whichever is later.
Provides cash flow for Civic Center C!P project.
4. Improvements/Temporary Maintenance of SchoollPark Site. Developer will fund and
improve four acres of hydro seed turf with irrigation on the Dublin Crossing future
Page 3 of 6
school /park site (to be owned by the City) within 18 months of acquisition from Army
(acquisition anticipated in 2017). Developer will maintain the improvements for two
years.
Benefit: Results in additional improvements and two years of maintenance at no cost to
the City.
5. Improvement of SchoollPark Site. Developer will fund and improve curb gutter and park
strip around Dublin Crossing future school/park site within 18 months of acquisition from
Army. Developer will provide maintenance of the facility for two years at no cost to the
City.
Benefit: Results in additional improvements at no cost to the City.
6. Cooperation in Expansion of Park. A third party, Scarlett Homes LLC, owns land that
developer requires to construct the Scarlett Drive extension. Only a portion of Scarlett
Homes LLC's property, which would be acquired by Developer, is required for the
roadway improvements, but the remaining portion could be incorporated into the Dublin
Crossing Park. Developer will attempt to acquire the entire parcel and, if successful, will
dedicate it to the City for future park expansion.
The Scarlett Homes LLC parcel currently includes a space leased to Kinder Morgan for
the operation of its pipeline within the area. Kinder Morgan has indicated its willingness to
relocate its site to an alternate location, potentially to a city -owned property. If an
alternative location is available, and the City was able to accommodate Kinder Morgan
within its property south of the site owned by the City, the City would forego a portion of
the Community Benefit as the site south of Dublin Blvd. is also the proposed location for
the wetland mitigation mentioned in Item 2 above.
Benefit: Results in larger park footprint at no additional cost to City or Public Facilities
Fee program.
Implementation of the Proposal
The City's approval of the process will become final only after a future City Council meeting in
which the City Council approves an insubstantial amendment to the development agreement.
Staff believes that it has the authority under the existing approvals to implement the proposed
changes. Nonetheless, because of the nature of the changes in the Project, Staff will only
approve the proposed changes with City Council consent. Staff's authority and the process for
implementing the changes are described below. The community benefits require an amendment
to the development agreement. Therefore, Staff is proposing that the Staff level approvals be
made contingent upon the City Council approval of the development agreement amendment.
This will provide the City Council an opportunity to review the details of the proposal.
Community Development Director Determination of Substantial Conformance with Specific Plan
As noted above, the Specific Plan anticipated that the drainage channel along Arnold Road
would be undergrounded and overlain with certain roadway frontage improvements. Section
7.1.6 of the Specific Plan allows the Community Development Director to determine that
variations are in conformance with the Specific Plan if the Developer demonstrates that the
changes meet certain requirements. Staff believes at present that the developer could make the
demonstration required by Section 7.1.6 of the Specific Plan. If the City Council authorizes Staff
to proceed with implementing the proposed revisions, the Community Development Director
Page 4 of 6
would consider whether leaving the channel along Arnold Road in place is in substantial
conformance with the Specific Plan.
Modification of Tentative Map Conditions
The undergrounding condition is among the conditions of the tentative map approval.
Conditions 10 and 11 in the tentative map approval give Staff the authority to make clarifications
and minor modifications to conditions. Staff believes that waiving the requirement to
underground the transmission lines along Arnold Road and along Scarlett Drive and across
Dublin Boulevard in both locations can be considered a clarification or minor modification.
Insubstantial Amendment to Development Agreement
Section 13.3 of the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement allows the City to approve
"insubstantial amendments" to the Development Agreement without notice and hearing before
either the Planning Commission or City Council. This language is present in many of the City's
development agreements. It allows the City Council to approve minor amendments to
development agreements without the need to follow the notice and public hearing process
ordinarily required for development agreements and amendments. In this particular case, the
necessary amendments to the Development Agreements have the developer providing more
(additional and accelerated community benefit payments) and the City not providing any more
(other than vesting the modifications that would be approved by Staff) than the Development
Agreement already requires. Therefore, Staff believes that the City Council can approve the
amendment as an insubstantial amendment.
Thus, if the City Council directs Staff to move forward, Staff will work with the developer to
finalize its submittal on the project changes. The Community Development Director and Public
Works Director will then consider the Specific Plan conformity and modifications to the tentative
map conditions. If they are approved, they would be made subject to the City Council's
approval of the amendment to the Development Agreement. Staff and the City Attorney will
work with the applicant on the amendments to the Development Agreement.
Use of Community Benefit Proceeds
Staff has reviewed future facility needs for the community and has identified three projects
where the funds could be expended.
Public Safety Complex Buildout
With the acquisition of the Public Safety Complex, it was envisioned that Police Services would
ultimately move to and occupy the available space there upon completion of improvements to
the facility, freeing up needed work space here at the Civic Center. With the funding coming
from the Dublin Crossing Project, the City would be able to accelerate that timeframe and
buildout space within the Public Safety Complex, such that all of Police Services could move to
that building. This proposal would be in lieu of the proposed modifications to the Police Services
wing of the Civic Center building, whereby the City Council has established a $2 million set
aside to make the space more usable in the future.
Cultural Arts Facility
The City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan calls for a cultural arts facility. Staff would propose
to repurpose the existing Police Wing of the Civic Center for use as a cultural arts center. As
envisioned, the facility would be primarily located on the first floor and offer classroom and
program space as well as community rooms and gallery space.
Page 5 of 6
Dublin Sports Grounds
Staff would propose that any remaining balance of community benefit funds be placed towards
the renovation of the Dublin Sports Grounds.
Staff recommends that the City Council provide feedback on the negotiated deal terms with
Developer.
If directed to proceed, Staff would approve amendments to the Specific Plan, the Vesting
Tentative Map, and the Development Agreement that would facilitate the tentative agreement.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. View of Powerlines along Scarlett Drive
2. View of powerlines along Arnold Drive
Page 6 of 6
i
Q
Z
m
LL
m
(D
Q
d
m
(U
L
v
G1
CU
L)
V)
w
C-
0
m
J
C-
0
tA
N
E
CIIh
C6
L
fCi
7•
o�
Go
vi
m
W
bA
m
LL
L
m
}
w
3
0
m
C
3
m
-0
m
0
Z3
i
L
r
rr
ORDINANCE NO. xx -16
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF DUBLIN AND DUBLIN CROSSING LLC RELATED TO THE
DUBLIN CROSSING PROJECT
PLPA- 2016 -00006
(APNS 986- 0001 - 001 -15 (PARTIAL), 986- 0034 - 002 -00, AND 986- 0034 - 006 -00)
The City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1: RECITALS
A. On November 5, 2013, the City Council approved Resolutions 186 -13 (EIR
certification) and 187 -13 (Specific Plan approval and General Plan amendments) as well as
Ordinances 07 -13 (Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map changes) and 08 -13 (Development
Agreement approval) that approved the Dublin Crossing project, which included the demolition
of the existing buildings and other improvements on the site and construction of a residential
mixed -use project with up to 1,995 single- and multi- family residential units; up to 200,000
square feet of retail, office and /or commercial uses; a 30 acre Community Park; a 5 acre
Neighborhood Park, and a 12 acre school site to serve approximately 900 students; and
B. On June 16, 2015, the City Council adopted Amendment No. 1 to the Development
Agreement between the City of Dublin and Dublin Crossing Venture LLC related to the Dublin
Crossing Project to: 1) incorporate the 1.5 acre Chabot Creek into the Community Park and
increase the acreage devoted to Medium Density Residential by 1.5 acres; 2) re- designate the
13 acre "Mixed Use" site to "General Commercial /DC High Density Residential "; 3) allow use of
the site designated "School" for both school and park purposes; 4) and implement modifications
to the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement, including a minor technical amendment to the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan boundary to be consistent with the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
boundary, and consideration of a CEQA Addendum; and
C. Subsequent to execution of Amendment No.1, Dublin Crossing Venture, LLC sold
and assigned all of its right, title and interest in the property and the development project
described in the Agreement to Dublin Crossing LLC, with the consent of City, pursuant to that
certain Assignment and Assumption of Development Agreement recorded in the Official
Records on August 28, 2015 as document number 2015239932; and
D. On October 20, 2015, the City Council directed Staff to prepare Amendment No. 2 to
the Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Dublin Crossing LLC, which the
parties deem an "insubstantial amendment" under the terms of the Development Agreement,
and process certain minor, insubstantial changes to the Project ( "the Amended Project
Approvals "), including certain changes to the proposed frontage along Arnold Road made at the
behest of the Regulatory Agencies and modifying conditions of approval that would require
undergrounding certain electrical transmission lines that cross the Property; and
ATTACHMENT 2
1
E. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum, dated January 5, 2016,
incorporated herein by reference, was prepared, which describes the proposed amendments to
the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, General Plan, and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the
Amendment No. 2 to the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement and its relation to the
analysis in the Dublin Crossing EIR; and
F. Amendment No. 2 to the Development Agreement will vest the Amended Project
Approvals; and
G. The City Council on January 19, 2016 considered the proposed Development
Agreement.
Section 2: FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS
Therefore, on the basis of: (a) the foregoing Recitals which are incorporated herein, (b)
the City of Dublin General Plan, as amended; (c) the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, as
amended, (d) the CEQA Addendum for proposed Dublin Crossing Project Amendments; (e) the
Staff Report; (f) information in the entire record of proceeding for the Project, and on the basis of
the specific conclusions set forth below, the City Council finds and determines that:
1. Amendment No. 2 to the Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives,
policies, general land uses and programs specified and contained in the City's General Plan and
in the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, as amended, in that: (a) Amendment No. 2 to the
Development Agreement incorporates the objectives policies, general land uses and programs
in the General Plan and Specific Plan and does not amend or modify them; and (b) the project is
consistent with the fiscal policies of the General Plan and Specific Plan with respect to the
provision of infrastructure and public services.
2. Amendment No. 2 to the Development Agreement is compatible with the uses
authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use districts in which the real property
is located because Amendment No. 2 to the Development Agreement does not amend the uses
or regulations in the applicable land use district.
3. Amendment No. 2 to the Development Agreement is in conformity with public
convenience, general welfare, and good land use policies in that the Developer's project will
implement land use guidelines set forth in Resolution No. 101 -15, amending the General Plan,
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, adopted by the City
Council on June 2, 2015.
4. Amendment No. 2 to the Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health,
safety, and general welfare in that the Developer's proposed project will proceed in accordance
with all the programs and policies of the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, as
amended, and future Project Approvals and any Conditions of Approval.
5. Amendment No. 2 to the Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly
development of property or the preservation of property values in that the project will be
consistent with the General Plan, the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, as amended, and future
Project Approvals.
2
6. Amendment No. 2 to the Development Agreement does not change the duration of the
agreement, the permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of use, the maximum
height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for
public purposes. The original Development Agreement continues to contain an indemnity and
insurance clause requiring the developer to indemnify and hold the City harmless against claims
arising out of the development process, including all legal fees and costs.
Section 3: APPROVAL
The City Council hereby approves Amendment No. 2 to the Development Agreement
(Exhibit A to the Ordinance) and authorizes the City Manager to execute it.
Section 4: RECORDATION
Within ten (10) days after the Development Agreement is fully executed by all parties, the
City Clerk shall submit the Agreement to the County Recorder for recordation.
Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of
its passage. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause the Ordinance to be posted in at
least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the
Government Code of the State of California.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of January, 2016.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
3
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
CITY OF DUBLIN
►TJI04i1YcW•T eWeI►TAF10Oe
City Clerk
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Fee Waived per GC 27383
EXHIBIT A
Space above this line for Recorder's use
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE
CITY OF DUBLIN
AND
DUBLIN CROSSING LLC
RELATING TO THE
DUBLIN CROSSING PROJECT
THIS AMENDMENT ( "Amendment ") is made and entered in the City of
Dublin on this — day of , 2016, by and between the City of Dublin, a
Municipal Corporation (hereafter "City "), DUBLIN CROSSING, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company (hereafter "Developer "), pursuant to the authority of
§§ 65864 et seq. of the California Government Code and Dublin Municipal Code,
Chapter 8.56. City and Developer are from time -to -time individually referred to in
this Amendment as a "Party" and are collectively referred to as "Parties ".
RFrITAI R
1. California Government Code §§ 65864 et seq. and Chapter 8.56 of
the Dublin Municipal Code (hereafter "Development Agreement Statutes ")
authorize the City to enter into an agreement for the development of real property
with any person having a legal or equitable interest in such property in order to
establish certain development rights in such property.
2. Pursuant to that authority, City and Developer entered into that
certain "Development Agreement Between the City of Dublin and Dublin
Crossing Venture LLC," dated November 19, 2013 and recorded in the Official
Records of Alameda County ( "Official Records ") on June 4, 2014 as document
number 2014134795 (the "Original Agreement "). Subsequently, the Parties
entered into that certain "Amendment No. 1 to Development Agreement Between
the City of Dublin and Dublin Crossing Venture LLC Relating to the Dublin
Crossing Project," dated June 16, 2015 and recorded in the Official Records on
July 22, 2015 as document number 2015202606 (the "First Amendment "). The
Original Agreement, as amended by the First Amendment, is referred to as the
"Agreement." Amendments to the Agreement are permitted by the mutual
consent of the Parties in accordance with Article 13.2 of the Agreement and by
the Development Agreement Statutes.
3. Subsequent to execution of the First Amendment, Dublin Crossing
Venture, LLC sold and assigned all of its right, title and interest in the property
and the development project described in the Agreement (the "Property" or the
"Project ") to Developer, with the consent of City, pursuant to that certain
Assignment and Assumption of Development Agreement recorded in the Official
Records on August 28, 2015 as document number 2015239932 (the "DA
Assignment ").
4. The Developer has requested certain minor changes to the Project,
and the City has approved them (the "Subsequent Project Approvals "),
contingent upon the effectiveness of this Amendment. The Subsequent Project
Approvals include certain changes to the proposed frontage along Arnold Road
made at the behest of the Regulatory Agencies and modifying conditions of
Amendment No. 2 to Dublin /Dublin Crossing Venture LLC Development Agreement
for the Dublin Crossing Project
approval that would require undergrounding certain electrical transmission lines
that cross the Property.
5. Section 13.3 of the Agreement provides that insubstantial
amendments to the Agreement may be executed by the parties to the Agreement
and shall not require notice or public hearing before either the Planning
Commission or the City Council.
6. Section 13.3 of the Agreement provides that an insubstantial
amendment is any amendment to the Agreement that does not relate to the
following (which are hereafter referred to as "Substantial Changes ") - 1) the term
of the Agreement as provided in Section 4.2; 2) the permitted uses of the
Property as provided in Section 5.1; 3) provisions for "significant" reservation or
dedication of land as provided; 4) conditions, terms, restrictions or requirements
for subsequent discretionary actions; 5) the density or intensity of use of the
Project; 6) the maximum height or size of proposed buildings; and 6) monetary
contributions by Developer as provided in the Agreement.
7. This Amendment does not relate to any Substantial Changes as
described in Recital 6 above and therefore constitutes an insubstantial
amendment that may be executed without notice or public hearing before either
the Planning Commission or the City Council.
8. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., hereinafter "CEQA "), City undertook the
required analysis of the environmental effects that would be caused by the
Existing Project Approvals and determined those feasible mitigation measures
which will eliminate, or reduce to an acceptable level, the adverse environmental
impacts of the Existing Project Approvals. The environmental effects of the
proposed development of the Property were analyzed by the Final Environmental
Impact Report (the "FEIR ") certified by City on November 5, 2013. In conjunction
therewith, City also adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (the
"MMRP ") to ensure that those mitigation measures incorporated as part of, or
imposed on, the Project are enforced and completed. Those mitigation
measures for which Developer is responsible are incorporated into, and required
by, the Project Approvals.
9. In conjunction with its review of the Subsequent Project Approvals,
the City prepared an addendum to the FEIR that concluded that none of the
conditions described in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 calling for the
preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
10. On
adopted Ordinance No.
Development Agreement
2016, the
approving
( "DA Amendmen
tCity Council of the City of Dublin
this Amendment No. 2 to the
Approving Ordinance "). The
Amendment No. 2 to Dublin /Dublin Crossing Venture LLC Development Agreement
for the Dublin Crossing Project 2
ordinance took effect on 2016 (the "Amendment Approval
Date ").
NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing recitals and in
consideration of the mutual promises, obligations and covenants herein
contained, City and Developer agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
Section 1. The parties agree that the Project Approvals will be treated
as Subsequent Project Approvals as that term is defined in the Agreement.
Section 2. Section 6.1 of the Agreement is amended to read in its
entirety as follows:
"6.1 Development Agreement Fee; Due On a Per -Unit Basis at Final
Map. Prior to the City's approval of each final map creating individual lots for
residential units, Developer shall pay the City a development agreement fee (the
"Development Agreement Fee ") calculated as follows: the number of residential
lots (or condominium parcels) that would be created by the specific final map
subject to approval multiplied by $26,691.96. For maps that create
condominiums, the tentative and final map shall indicate the maximum number of
units permitted by the final map, and the Development Agreement Fee paid shall
be based on the maximum number of units permitted by the final map. For maps
creating fewer than 40 lots or condominium units, the Development Agreement
Fee shall be based on 40 lots or condominium units. In the event that Developer
seeks a site development review ( "SDR ") approval for residential units for which
the per unit fee has not been paid (e.g. apartment projects), Developer shall pay
the per -unit fee amount at the time of SDR approval. The per -unit fee amount
($26,691.96 per residential unit) shall not be adjusted for inflation. At such point
as Developer has paid Development Agreement Fees or advances equal to
$42,707,142 in the aggregate, Developer shall no longer be obligated to pay the
Development Agreement Fee required by this subsection. As detailed in Exhibit
E, the $26,691.96 per residential unit fee generates $42,707,142 at the point
when 1,600 units are mapped in the Project. The Development Agreement Fee
was determined based on six separate components described in this Agreement:
(a) Park Construction, § 9.6; (b) Community Benefit, § 7; (c) Iron Horse Bridge
Design, § 10.3.1; (d) Iron Horse Bridge Construction; § 10.3.2; (e) ACSPA
Property Acquisition Contribution, § 9.8; and (f) Park Maintenance Endowment,
§ 9.7. The City is requiring the payment of the Development Agreement Fee as
a condition to development of the Property. The Parties agree that the City shall
be deemed for all purposes to be requiring the payment of the Development
Agreement Fee as a condition to development of the Property and that the
Development Agreement Fee should be considered a supplemental fee and, in
all aspects of its application and implementation, should not be deemed a waiver
Amendment No. 2 to Dublin /Dublin Crossing Venture LLC Development Agreement
for the Dublin Crossing Project 3
or fee reduction of any kind. If at any point the City Council determines that at
full buildout development on the Property will not or is unlikely to produce 1,600
units, the City may withhold further approvals, including final maps, until such
time as Developer provides adequate assurances that the City will receive the
entire $42,707,142 in Development Fee revenue."
Section 3. Section 7 of the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety
as follows:
"7. Community Benefit Payment.
7.1 Developer has agreed, as partial consideration for the City's
entering into this agreement, to contribute to the City over the course of the
Project the sum of $23,500,000 as a Community Benefit Payment, in accordance
with the following schedule and requirements.
7.2 The Community Benefit Payment is a component of the
Development Agreement Fee and will be paid as specified in Section 6.1, except
that, if the City has not received the following amount, exclusive of Development
Agreement Fee component payments previously applied, by the applicable
deadline below, Developer shall, on or before the applicable deadline, make an
advance of Development Agreement Fees equal to the difference between the
amount of Development Agreement Fees the City had previously received,
exclusive of Development Agreement Fee component payments previously
applied, and the amount set out below.
Amendment No. 2 to Dublin /Dublin Crossing Venture LLC Development Agreement
for the Dublin Crossing Project 4
Payment Amount Deadline
First $15,000,000 June 30, 2016
Second $3,000,000 June 30, 2018
Third $1,000,000 June 30, 2019
Fourth $1,000,000 June 30, 2020
Fifth $1,000,000 June 30, 2021
Sixth $2,500,000 At recordation of the last final
map in Phase 4 of the Project
(see Exhibit D)"
Section 4. Section 9.9 is added to the agreement to read as follows:
"9.9. Cooperation in Potential Expansion of Park Footprint. One of the
transportation improvements that Developer is required to complete, the Scarlett
Drive extension, requires the acquisition of a portion of a parcel owned by a third
party, Scarlett Homes LLC. The remainder, if acquired from Scarlett Homes
LLC, could be incorporated into the Dublin Crossing Park, and the Parties desire
that that occur if feasible. Developer will use commercially reasonable efforts, as
determined by Developer in its sole discretion, to acquire the entire parcel owned
by Scarlett Homes LLC, and, if that effort is successful, it will dedicate it to the
City for park purposes. City shall accept such dedication upon Developer's
satisfaction of the requirements of Section 9.4. The City shall not be obligated
under Section 9.5 to improve the lands dedicated pursuant to this Section, and
Developer shall not be entitled to credit under the PFF as a result of the
dedication."
Section 5. Section 12 of the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety
as follows:
"12. School Site. Developer shall dedicate to the City the 12 net acre
school site with the first final map in Project Phase 3. The 12 net acre school site
is designated Parcel 27 on Vesting Tentative Map 8150 and is bounded by D
Amendment No. 2 to Dublin /Dublin Crossing Venture LLC Development Agreement
for the Dublin Crossing Project 5
Street, G Street, F Street, and Central Parkway. The dedication will, upon
satisfaction of the criteria in Section 9.2 for such treatment, be noted in the City's
records as a dedication of 3 acres of parkland for the purposes of the
Developer's satisfaction of its obligations under the community park land
component of the City's Public Facilities Fee and the parkland dedication
requirements of Chapter 9.28 of the Dublin Municipal Code. Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary in this Section and in Section 9, Developer agrees to
improve and maintain for a period of 24 months following their completion: (a)
curb, gutter, and planter strips surrounding the school site and (b) four acres of
hydroseeded turf in a location on the school site to be determined by the City.
The improvements shall be completed within 18 months of Developer's
acquisition of the property that contains the school site and shall be maintained
during the 24 -month period at no cost to the City. The City will accept the school
site at the conclusion of the 24 -month period provided developer has satisfied the
requirements set forth in Section 9.4 for acceptance of parkland."
Section 6. Sections 13 through 29 of the Agreement are hereby
renumbered 15 through 31.
Section 7. New Section 13 is hereby added to the Agreement to read
as follows:
13. Wetlands Mitigation Easement Purchase. As a means of potentially
satisfying the Project's wetlands mitigation obligation, Developer agrees to
consider the purchase of rights from the City over the City -owned parcel adjacent
to the Iron Horse Trail and south of Dublin Boulevard (Assessor's Parcel Number
941 - 0550 - 023 -04) ( "the Property ") that would allow the Property or a portion
thereof to be preserved under conservation easement held by a third party.
Developer shall be responsible for obtaining regulatory approval for the
Property's use as wetlands mitigation for the Project and for the costs of any
necessary improvements to the Property. The parties anticipate that the City
would be responsible for the costs of any required maintenance and
management of the easement area in accordance with the Wetland Mitigation
Plan required by the regulatory agencies. Nothing in this paragraph obligates the
City to sell the necessary rights to Developer. The parties agree that the City
shall be grantee of a conservation easement and a third party conservation
easement holder may be required and is subject to regulatory agency approval."
Section 8. New Section 14 is hereby added to the Agreement to read as
fol lows:
"14. Acceleration of Civic Center Component of Public Facilities Fee.
Developer shall pay the Civic Center Component of the Public Facilities Fee for
1600 residential units on an accelerated basis at the rate that became effective
October 15, 2015 ($892 per dwelling unit). The entire payment ($1,427,200)
Amendment No. 2 to Dublin /Dublin Crossing Venture LLC Development Agreement
for the Dublin Crossing Project 6
shall be made on or prior to the later of (a) June 30, 2016 or (b) the date upon
which all appeal, legal challenge and rehearing periods relating to the
Subsequent Project Approvals shall have expired without legal challenge, or, if
any appeal, legal challenge or rehearing request is filed against the City
challenging the Subsequent Project Approvals, the date upon which all such
challenges are finally dismissed and either (i) all of such Subsequent Project
Approvals remain effective or, (ii) have been reaffirmed, if required by the
resolution of the challenge(s), whichever is later. As a result of such payment,
Developer shall receive a credit against the Civic Center Component of the
Public Facilities Fee for the first 1600 units in the Project. The credit created as a
result of this Section shall be a credit against the Civic Center Component of the
Public Facilities Fee for up to 1,600 units, notwithstanding any future changes in
the amount of the fee , shall be applicable only to units within the Project area,
and shall in all other respects be subject to the requirements of the City's
"Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines" or its successor that is in
effect at the time the credits are created."
Section 9. Exhibits E and F to the Agreement are replaced in their
entirety by revised Exhibits E and F attached hereto and incorporated by this
reference.
Section 10. Full Force and Effect. Except as specifically clarified,
confirmed or modified herein, the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect
according to its terms.
Section 11. Defined Terms. Defined terms have the same meaning in
this Amendment as in the Agreement unless otherwise specified.
Section 12. Effective Date. This Amendment shall become effective
upon the date the ordinance approving this Agreement becomes effective (the
"Effective Date ").
Section 13. Recordation. City shall record a copy of this Amendment
within ten (10) days following execution by all parties.
Amendment No. 2 to Dublin /Dublin Crossing Venture LLC Development Agreement
for the Dublin Crossing Project 7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be
executed as of the date and year first above written.
CITY:
CITY OF DUBLIN
Chris Foss, City Manager
Attest:
Caroline Soto, City Clerk
Approved as to form
John Bakker, City Attorney
DEVELOPER:
DUBLIN CROSSING, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: BrookCal Dublin LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
Its: Member
By-
Name-
Its-
By-
Name-
Its-
By- SPIC Dublin LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
Its: Member
By: Standard Pacific Investment Corp.,
a Delaware corporation
Its: Member
By: _
Name:
Its:
Amendment No. 2 to Dublin /Dublin Crossing Venture LLC Development Agreement
for the Dublin Crossing Project 8
Totals
Components
Park Construction
Community Benefit
Iron Horse Trail Grade Separated
Crossing Design
Iron Horse Trail Grade Separated
Crossing Construction
ACSPA Contribution
Park Maintenance Endowment
Exhibit E
Components of Development Agreement Fee
Lots
1600
Section
amended 9.6
amended 7.1
10.3.1
10.3.2
Aggregate
$42,707,142
$12,857,142
$23,500,000
$50,000
$1,000,000
$2,800,000
$2,500,000
Per Lot CFD Eligible CFD Ineligible
$26,691.96 $16,707,142 $26,000,000
$8,035.71
$14,687.50
$31.25
$12,857,142
$0
$50,000
$625.00 $1,000,000
$1,750.00 $2,800,000
$1,562.50 $0
$0
$23,500,000
$0
$0
$0
$2,500,000
Exhibit F
Examples of Operation of Development Agreement Fee
Advances and Applications
Table 1 Contributions by Phase and Time
CFD Eligible
Community
Park ACSPA Iron Horse Subtotal,
Units Construction Parcel Bridge CFD Eligible
Contributions Required
in Phases
Phase 1
430
$100,000
Phase 2
322
$4,185,714 $2,800,000
Phase 3
360
$4,285,714
Phase 4
150
Phase 5
338
$4,285,714
Project End'
-
Subtotal 1600 $12,857,142 $2,800,000
Contributions Required at Specific Times
6/30/2016
6/30/2018
6/30/2019
6/30/2020
6/30/2021
Subtotal
TOTAL $12,857,142 $2,800,000
Not CFD
Park Community Subtotal, Not
Endowment Benefit CFD EFi2ible
$50,000 $150,000
$6,985,714 $840,000
$4,285,714 $840,000
$0
$4,285,714 $820,000
$1,000,000 $1,000,000
$1,050,000 $16,707,1421 $2,500,000
$2,500,000
$2,500,000
$15,000,000
$3,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$21,000,000
$1,050,000 $16,707,142 $2,500,000 $23,500,000
Total Contributions Required: $42,707,142
Contributions Per Unit: $26,691.96
$0
$840,000
$840,000
$2,500,000
$820,000
$0
$5,000,000
$15,000,000
$3,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$21,000,000
$26,000,000
Total
$150,000
$7,825,714
$5,125,714
$2,500,000
$5,105,714
$1,000,000
$21,707,142
$15,000,000
$3,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$21,000,000
$42,707,142
1) The $1 million contribution to the construction of the Iron Horse Bridge will have been collected in full upon completion of 1600 units.
Example Scenario: Phase 1 starts immediately. Each phase is completed in 24 months.
a
b
c
d
e
f
Cumulative
Total
Balance at End of
Per Lot Fees by
Contributions
Time Frame
Contributions
Phase
Phase
Required in Phase
Contributions
in Phase
(e - b + prior
Phase
Complete
Units
(c x $26,691.96)
(See Table 1)
(See Table 1)
(c + d)
balance)
1
6/30/2016
430
$11, 477, 544.41
$ 150, 000
$ 15,000,000
$15,150,000
$3,672,456
2
6/30/2018
322
$8, 594, 812.33
$7, 825, 714
$3,000,000
$10,825,714
$5,903,357
3
6/30/2020
360
$9, 609, 106.95
$5, 125, 714
$2,000,000
$7,125,714
$3,419,964
4
6/30/2022
150
$4, 003, 794.56
$2, 500, 000
$1,000,000
$3,500,000
$2,916,170
5
6/30/2024
338
$9 ,021,883.75
$5,105,714
$5,105,714
- $1,000,000
Project End
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
Totals
1600
$42,707,142.00
$21,707,142
$21,000,000
$42,707,142
$0
RESOLUTION NO. xx -16
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING A CEQA ADDENDUM FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT RELATED TO THE DUBLIN CROSSING PROJECT
PLPA- 2016 -00006
(APNS 986- 0001 - 001 -15 (PARTIAL), 986- 0034 - 002 -00, AND 986- 0034 - 006 -00)
WHEREAS, the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan (DCSP) project area is approximately
189 acres in size and is generally bound by 5t" Street to the north, Scarlett Drive to the
west, Dublin Boulevard to the south, and Arnold Road to the east; and
WHEREAS, on November 5, 2013, the City Council approved Resolutions 186 -13 (EIR
certification) and 187 -13 (Specific Plan approval and General Plan amendments) as well as
Ordinances 07 -13 (Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map changes) and 08 -13 (Development
Agreement approval) that approved the Dublin Crossing project, which included the demolition
of the existing buildings and other improvements on the site and construction of a residential
mixed -use project with up to 1,995 single- and multi - family residential units; up to 200,000
square feet of retail, office and /or commercial uses; a 30 acre Community Park; a 5 acre
Neighborhood Park, and a 12 acre school site to serve approximately 900 students; and
WHEREAS, on June 2, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution 100 -15 adopting a
CEQA Addendum for Amendments to the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, and Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement related to the
Dublin Crossing Project; and
WHEREAS, the Project Applicant has requested a second amendment to the Dublin
Crossing Development Agreement and has also proposed minor changes to the approved
project which result in the need to make determinations on the proposed revisions' consistency
with the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and with the Conditions of Approval for Vesting Tentative
Map 8150; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State
guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study which describes the proposed Project,
including the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Substantial Conformance Determination, Finding of
Compliance with the Conditions of Approval for VTM 8150, and Amendment No. 2 to the Dublin
Crossing Development Agreement. The Initial Study, dated January 5, 2016, examines the
project and its relation to the original analysis in the Dublin Crossing EIR, incorporated herein by
reference and attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. The document was prepared to
determine if additional environmental review was required pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162. Based on the Initial Study, the
City determined that the potentially significant effects of the project were adequately addressed
in the Dublin Crossing EIR (SCH 2012062009); and
ATTACHMENT 3
1
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, no subsequent EIR
shall be prepared for the Proposed Project, as no substantial changes have been proposed to
the project or the conditions under which the project will be carried out that require major
revisions of the Dublin Crossing EIR. No new significant environmental impacts have been
identified and no substantial increases in the severity of previously identified impacts were
discovered. The project remains subject to all previously adopted mitigation measures, as
applicable; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum, dated January
5, 2016, incorporated herein by reference and attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A -1, was
prepared, which describes the Proposed Project and its relation to the analysis in the Dublin
Crossing EIR; and
WHEREAS, Section 13.3 of the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement provides that
insubstantial amendments to the Agreement may be executed by the parties to the Agreement
and shall not require notice or public hearing before either the Planning Commission or the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated January 19, 2016 and incorporated herein by
reference, described and analyzed the Proposed Project, including Amendment No. 2 to the
Dublin Crossing Development Agreement and the associated CEQA Addendum, for the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Dublin Crossing EIR and CEQA Addendum,
all above - referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 and the California Court of
Appeals decision Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002)
103 Cal. App. 4t" 98, 125, approval of the Project must be supported by a new Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council has reviewed and considered the
Addendum and Initial Study (Exhibit A) and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit
B) prior to taking action on the project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby adopt the CEQA
Addendum, including the related Initial Study, attached as Exhibit A, pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 for the Amendments to the General Plan, Dublin Crossing
Specific Plan, and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan related to the Dublin Crossing Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby adopt the Statement of
Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit B.
vote:
AYES:
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 19th day of January, 2016 by the following
2
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:IPk20151PLPA- 2015 -00016 Dublin Crossing GPA- SPk5.12.15 PC MtglAtt 4 - CC Reso Addendum.docx
Initial Study and CEQA Addendum to the Exhibit A
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Substantial Conformance Determination,
Finding of Compliance with the Conditions of Approval for VTM 8150, and
Amendment No. 2 to the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement (M6) Project
City of Dublin
January 5, 2oi6
ADDENDUM
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
On October 20, 2015, the City Council received a staff report outlining proposed revisions to the Dublin
Crossing project and related community benefit contributions being proposed by the Developer.
Modifications to the project included the decision to not culvert the existing open channel along Arnold
Road and the elimination of the requirement to underground the overhead power lines along Scarlett
Drive across Dublin Blvd. Formalizing these two changes to the project requires approval by the
Community Development Director and City Engineer (as allowed by Condition of Approval to to Planning
Commission Resolution 14 -14, which approved the Vesting Tentative Map for the project) and as allowed
by Section 7.1.6 of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan.
The Community Development Director and City Engineer have agreed that the project, as proposed to be
modified, remains in compliance with both the Conditions of Approval for the Vesting Tentative Map and
in substantial conformance with the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan. The findings for both decisions are
detailed in the numbered sections 1 and z below.
In addition to the modifications to the project as detailed, the Project Applicant is also proposing changes
to the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement, which is described in further detail in numbered section 3
below. The Development Agreement amendment requires review and approval by the City Council.
i. Compliance with the Conditions of Approval of VTM 8150 (PC Resolution 14-14)
Arnold Road modification (Condition of Approval 71)
The approved Dublin Crossing Specific Plan identifies the conversion of Arnold Road from its current two -
lane condition to a four lane roadway. This expansion required undergrounding the open channel on the
west side of the street. The Project Developer, Dublin Crossing LLC, has indicated that the resource
agencies are not looking favorably upon the issuance of a permit to underground the channel and would
prefer that the Developer leave the channel open and in place. Relocation of the open channel to
accommodate the expansion of Arnold Road, should it be approved by the resource agencies, would
present a significant cost and time burden to the overall project timing and as such, the Developer has
requested that the City allow for an alternative for the improvements along this side of the development.
Staff has reviewed this request and, while it would be desirable to have the channel undergrounded to
create additional roadway capacity, Staff believes there is a benefit to the option of leaving the channel in
place as it creates a natural buffer between the development and the street. Disturbing the site and the
wildlife therein would also have an impact on the area, and leaving the channel intact would therefore be a
better environmental option. Additionally, the channel itself will be naturalized and improved to become
an attractive feature within the area, mitigating the visual impact of the change.
Overhead Utility Lines (Condition of Approval 69)
The Developer has met with PG &E to discuss the undergrounding of the utility lines on the project as
required by conditions of approval. PG &E identified that in addition to distribution lines along Scarlett
Drive, the utility poles also contain high -power transmission lines. PG &E has indicated that it is nearly
impossible to place these large transmission lines underground and would likely not responded favorably
to the request. Neither the City nor the Developer have the authority to force PG &E to allow the
undergrounding to proceed. Thus, the Developer has requested that the City refrain from enforcing
Condition of Approval 69, which requires the undergrounding. Due to the inherent challenge of requiring
the participation of another agency to ensure the compliance with a condition of approval, Staff is
acknowledges that Condition of Approval 69 cannot be complied with as written. The Developer will
instead work with PG &E to remove the existing utility pole that is in the future Scarlett Drive extension
right of way, underground the distribution lines, and realign the remaining poles on either side of Dublin
Blvd. to minimize the aesthetic impacts of the utility lines as they cross the street.
These two modifications were reviewed with the City Council in a staff report and accompanying
presentation on October 20, 2015. The City Council directed Staff to proceed with allowing these changes
to the project. Upon that request, the City Engineer and Community Development Director authorized the
proposed changes to the project as a minor modification to the respective conditions and found the
project to be in compliance with the conditions (although in a manner that is different than originally
intended).
2. Determining Substantial Conformance with the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
Section 7.1.6 of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan allows the Community Development Director discretion
to determine that a land use district boundary adjustment, or other similar variation, is in conformance
with the Specific Plan if several items (detailed in Section 7.1.6) can be demonstrated.
In allowing this modification, the Community Development Director acknowledges that certain sections of
the Specific Plan will no longer accurately describe the conditions to be created by the project, including
text on Specific Plan Page 4 -28 that describes the future conditions of Arnold Road and Specific Plan Figure
4 -20, which will no longer be an accurate depiction of the future street edge conditions. A more accurate
description of the Arnold Road future conditions is as follows:
The west side of Arnold Road has a drainage channel that is approximately 30 feet wide. This channel will remain open
and will be enhanced with native vegetation. Central Parkway north to Horizon Parkway, the channel will be
immediately adjacent to the street and there will be a 10 foot wide multi use trail on the west side of the channel adjacent
to the neighborhood and a community wall or fence behind the trail. If there are commercial uses that end up developing
along Arnold Road north of Central Parkway, the interface with the street and drainage channel may be re- examined and
entrance drives to the commercial area could be considered.
Despite the change in the channel area, the interface between the project area and Arnold Road will be
very similar to what was originally planned, with a landscaped area along the street edge. Attachment 1 to
this memorandum describes and illustrates the future condition. The exhibit demonstrates that impacts to
aesthetics can be mitigated by creating an attractive landscape buffer along the neighborhood edge, the
open channel, and the street.
However, a material change created by leaving the channel open and not building a culvert is the inability
to accommodate the expansion of Arnold Road with a wide, landscaped median, Class II bicycle lanes, a
landscaped parkway strip, and an 8 -foot sidewalk along the street. Vesting Tentative Map 8150 illustrates
these improvements. The Final Subdivision Improvement Plans will reflect an open channel and a
narrower right -of -way for Arnold Road, as shown in the Proposed Arnold Road Improvements (Exhibit A -1
and A -2). A traffic /circulation analysis was prepared by a qualified consultant and reviewed by the City's
Transportation and Operations Manager. The analysis concluded that the circulation along Arnold Road
for all modes of transportation would be sufficiently accommodated with the reduced right of way width
(Exhibit A -3).
3. Dublin Crossing Development Agreement Amendment No. 2
The Project Developer is proposing Amendment No. z to the Development Agreement between the City
and Dublin Crossing Venture LLC related to the Dublin Crossing Project. The specific Development
Agreement items include:
• Modifying the total amount and timing of the Community Benefit Payment contributions;
• Requiring that the Project Developer help the City with pursuing a small expansion of the
Community Park footprint along Scarlett Drive;
• Requiring that the Project Developer install hydroturf on four acres of the future school /park site
within the project area;
• Project Developer agreement to purchase a wetland mitigation easement over the City -owned
parcel adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail and south of Dublin Boulevard to preserve the property as
open space; and
• Project Developer agreement to accelerate the payment of the Civic Center Component of Public
Facilities Fee due for the entirety of the project.
The modifications to the Development Agreement consist primarily of adjusting the timing and payment of
fees and modifying the responsible party for the completion of certain improvements. The physical
improvements to be completed were previously contemplated, but the amendments to the Development
Agreement modify the timing of the construction of the improvements.
The proposed changes to the project and the associated Development Agreement amendments will result
in the construction of the Dublin Crossing project without increasing the current maximum number of
housing units (up to 1,995) allowed or the maximum amount of commercial square footage allowed to be
built (up to 200,000 square feet). Additionally, a slightly larger amount of parkland will be provided, land
that is currently open space (the City -owned parcel along the Iron Horse Trail) will remain so, the Arnold
Road channel will remain open and aesthetically improved, and the vehicular circulation through and
around the site will remain sufficient to serve the community's needs.
PRIOR CEQAANALYSIS:
On November 5, 2013 via City Council Resolution 186 -13, the City Council certified a Final Environmental
Impact Report (SCH 2012062009) for the Dublin Crossing Project.
The Final El analyzed the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, which was a plan for the orderly development of
approximately 189 acres, including 8.7 acres owned by Alameda County Surplus Property Authority, an 8.9
acre parcel owned by NASA, and a 172 -acre portion of the 2,485 -acre Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training
Area (Camp Parks). The Specific Plan addressed the future development of the project area, which
includes demolition of the existing buildings and other improvements on the site and construction of a
residential mixed -use project with up to 1,995 single- and multi - family residential units; up to 200,000
square feet of retail, office and /or commercial uses; a 3o acre Community Park; a 5 acre Neighborhood
Park, and a 12 acre elementary school site to serve approximately goo students.
On June 2, 2015 via City Council Resolution 100 -15, the City Council adopted a CEQA Addendum for
Amendments to the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and
Development Agreement related to the Dublin Crossing Project (2015). The CEQA Addendum analyzed
land use amendments to the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and
modifications to the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement that helped facilitate the no -cost acquisition
of a 12 -acre school site that can be used by both the City and the School District.
CURRENT CEQA ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION THAT AN ADDENDUM IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS
PROJECT:
In order to determine if there were any significant environmental impacts that were present with the
proposed project that were not already addressed (and mitigated if necessary) in the Dublin Crossing FEI R,
an Initial Study was completed. The Initial Study, dated January 5, 2016 and incorporated herein by
reference, determined that the potentially significant effects of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
Substantial Conformance Determination, Finding of Compliance with the Conditions of Approval for VTM
8150, and Amendment No. 2 to the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement (2016) Project were
adequately addressed in the Dublin Crossing FEIR, and that no substantial changes are proposed with the
current Project or the conditions under which the Project will be undertaken that require revisions of the
previous environmental documents. Based on the Initial Study, this Addendum has been prepared, which
notes the difference between the Proposed Project (2016) and the previous project approvals (2013),
which CEQA impacts were addressed in the certified Dublin Crossing FEIR.
The Proposed Project (2016) does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin
Crossing Specific Plan area, substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow
more development or a higher intensity of development, or introduce any new project attributes that
were not present at the time the original project was analyzed and the Dublin Crossing FEIR certified. The
circulation system remains the same, the number of allowable residential units has not increased, the
amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased, and the number of students expected
to be served by the school has not changed.
NO SUBSEQUENT REVIEW IS REQUIRED PER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15162:
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, no subsequent
environmental analysis shall be prepared for the Proposed Project (2016), as no substantial changes have
been proposed with the Project or the conditions under which the Project will be undertaken which
require revisions to the previous environmental documents. No new significant environmental impacts
have been identified and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts has been
discovered.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, with minor technical amendments and clarifications as
outlined in this Addendum, the Dublin Crossing FEIR will continue to adequately address the significant
environmental impacts of the Proposed Project (2o16).
CONCLUSION:
The City prepared an Initial Study in connection with the Proposed Project (2o16). Based on the Initial
Study, the City prepared an Addendum to the Dublin Crossing FEIR. As provided in Section 15164, the
Addendum need not be circulated for public review, but shall be considered with the previous
environmental documents before making a decision on the proposed project. The Initial Study is included
below and the previous environmental documents are available for review in the Community Development
Department at the City of Dublin, loo Civic Plaza, Dublin, California.
INITIAL STUDY
This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines. It assesses the potential environmental impacts of implementing the
proposed project described below and whether those impacts are adequately addressed in prior
environmental reviews for the site. The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a
brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist.
i. Project Title: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Substantial Conformance
Determination, Finding of Compliance with the Conditions of
Approval for VTM 8150, and Amendment No. z to the Dublin
Crossing Development Agreement (2016)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
loo Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
(925) 833 -6610
4. Project Location: Approximately 189 acres bound generally by 5t" Street to
the north, Scarlett Drive to the west, Dublin Boulevard to
the south, and Arnold Road to the east. APNs 986- 0001 -00l-
15 (partial), 986 -0034- 002 -00, and 986 - 0034 - 006 -00
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Joe Guerra
Dublin Crossing Venture LLC /Brookfield Residential
Soo La Gonda Way, Suite loo
Danville, CA 94526
6. General /Specific Plan Designation:
7. Zoning:
8. Surrounding land uses and setting:
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
Dublin Crossing Zoning District
LOCATION
ZONING
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY
North
Ag
Public Lands
Camp Parks
South
PD
High Density Residential and Campus Office
Residential Apartments
East
PD
Campus Office
Business Park
PD and
Medium -High Density Residential and
Combination of uses including
Retail /Office,
apartments, service commercial, and
West
Light
Business Park /Industrial and Outdoor
retail uses
Industrial
Storage
9. Other Public Agencies: None
io Other public agencies who may rely on this CEQA document:
Grading and Building permits (City of Dublin)
Sewer and water connections (DS RSD)
Encroachment permits (City of Dublin)
Notice of Intent (State Water Resources Control Board)
Project Description
Background
The Dublin Crossing project site includes approximately 189 acres of land that are divided between the
following property owners: 139 acres owned by the United States Army, 8.7 acres owned by the Alameda
County Surplus Property Authority, and approximately 41.9 acres owned by Dublin Crossing Venture LLC.
The project area is shown below.
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
After several years of planning, analysis, and negotiations, on November 5, 2013, the City Council approved
the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan (DCSP) and associated implementation actions. The Specific Plan
outlined the future development of the project area, which includes demolition of the existing buildings
and other improvements on the site and construction of a residential mixed -use project with up to 1,995
single- and multi - family residential units; up to 200,000 square feet of retail, office and /or commercial uses;
a 3o acre Community Park; a 5 acre Neighborhood Park, and a 12 acre school site to serve approximately
goo students.
In addition to the DCSP, amendments were approved to the General Plan, the Dublin Zoning Ordinance,
and Zoning Map to implement the Specific Plan. The project approvals also included the certification of
the Dublin Crossing Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The approval actions by the City Council
were formalized in Resolutions 186 -13 (ElR certification) and 187 -13 (Specific Plan approval and General Plan
amendments) as well as Ordinances 07 -13 (Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map changes) and o8 -13
(Development Agreement approval).
In 2014, City Staff approached the Project Developer to discuss options for the City to obtain the 12-acre
school site in an effort to assist the school district in their efforts to construct a public school on the
project site to serve the community. After much discussion and negotiation, agreement was reached on
terms that would allow the transfer of the future school site to the City at no cost in exchange for
modifications to the entitlements for the Dublin Crossing project. To effectuate these changes, on June z,
2015 via City Council Resolution 100 -15, the City Council adopted amendments to the General Plan, Dublin
Crossing Specific Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Development Agreement related to the Dublin
Crossing Project (2015) and an associated CEQA Addendum.
Proposed Project
The Proposed Project is comprised of the following components:
i. Determination of Compliance with the Conditions of Approval of VTM 8150 (PC Resolution 14-14)
Arnold Road modification (Condition of Approval 71)
The approved Dublin Crossing Specific Plan identifies the conversion of Arnold Road from its current two -
lane condition to a four lane roadway. This expansion required undergrounding the open channel on the
west side of the street. The Project Developer, Dublin Crossing LLC, has indicated that the resource
agencies are not looking favorably upon the issuance of a permit to underground the channel and would
prefer that the Developer leave the channel open and in place. Relocation of the open channel to
accommodate the expansion of Arnold Road, should it be approved by the resource agencies, would
present a significant cost and time burden to the overall project timing and as such, the Developer has
requested that the City allow for an alternative for the improvements along this side of the development.
Staff has reviewed this request and, while it would be desirable to have the channel undergrounded to
create additional roadway capacity, Staff believes there is a benefit to the option of leaving the channel in
place as it creates a natural buffer between the development and the street. Disturbing the site and the
wildlife therein would also have an impact on the area, and leaving the channel intact would therefore be a
better environmental option. Additionally, the channel itself will be naturalized and improved to become
an attractive feature within the area, mitigating the visual impact of the change.
Overhead Utility Lines (Condition of Approval 69)
The Developer has met with PG &E to discuss the undergrounding of the utility lines on the project as
required by conditions of approval. PG &E identified that in addition to distribution lines along Scarlett
Drive, the utility poles also contain high -power transmission lines. PG &E has indicated that it is nearly
impossible to place these large transmission lines underground and would likely not responded favorably
to the request. Neither the City nor the Developer have the authority to force PG &E to allow the
undergrounding to proceed. Thus, the Developer has requested that the City refrain from enforcing
Condition of Approval 69, which requires the undergrounding. Due to the inherent challenge of requiring
the participation of another agency to ensure the compliance with a condition of approval, Staff is
acknowledges that Condition of Approval 69 cannot be complied with as written. The Developer will
instead work with PG &E to remove the existing utility pole that is in the future Scarlett Drive extension
right of way, underground the distribution lines, and realign the remaining poles on either side of Dublin
Blvd. to minimize the aesthetic impacts of the utility lines as they cross the street.
These two modifications were reviewed with the City Council in a staff report and accompanying
presentation on October 20, 2015. The City Council directed Staff to proceed with allowing these changes
to the project. Upon that request, the City Engineer and Community Development Director authorized the
proposed changes to the project as a minor modification to the respective conditions and found the
project to be in compliance with the conditions (although in a manner that is different than originally
intended).
2. Determination of Substantial Conformance with the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
Section 7.1.6 of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan allows the Community Development Director discretion
to determine that a land use district boundary adjustment, or other similar variation, is in conformance
with the Specific Plan if several items (detailed in Section 7.1.6) can be demonstrated.
In allowing this modification, the Community Development Director acknowledges that certain sections of
the Specific Plan will no longer accurately describe the conditions to be created by the project, including
text on Specific Plan Page 4 -28 that describes the future conditions of Arnold Road and Specific Plan Figure
4 -20, which will no longer be an accurate depiction of the future street edge conditions. A more accurate
description of the Arnold Road future conditions is as follows:
The west side of Arnold Road has a drainage channel that is approximately 30 feet wide. This channel will remain open
and will be enhanced with native vegetation. Central Parkway north to Horizon Parkway, the channel will be
immediately adjacent to the street and there will be a 10 foot wide multi use trail on the west side of the channel adjacent
to the neighborhood and a community wall or fence behind the trail. If there are commercial uses that end up developing
along Arnold Road north of Central Parkway, the interface with the street and drainage channel may be re- examined and
entrance drives to the commercial area could be considered.
Despite the change in the channel area, the interface between the project area and Arnold Road will be
very similar to what was originally planned, with a landscaped area along the street edge. Attachment 1 to
this memorandum describes and illustrates the future condition. The exhibit demonstrates that impacts to
aesthetics can be mitigated by creating an attractive landscape buffer along the neighborhood edge, the
open channel, and the street.
However, a material change created by leaving the channel open and not building a culvert is the inability
to accommodate the expansion of Arnold Road with a wide, landscaped median, Class II bicycle lanes, a
landscaped parkway strip, and an 8 -foot sidewalk along the street. Vesting Tentative Map 8150 illustrates
these improvements. The Final Subdivision Improvement Plans will reflect an open channel and a
narrower right -of -way for Arnold Road, as shown in the Proposed Arnold Road Improvements
(Attachments 1 and 2). A traffic /circulation analysis was prepared by a qualified consultant and reviewed
by the City's Transportation and Operations Manager. The analysis concluded that the circulation along
Arnold Road for all modes of transportation would be sufficiently accommodated with the reduced right
of way width (Attachment 3).
3. Dublin Crossing Development Agreement Amendment No. 2
The Project Developer is proposing Amendment No. z to the Development Agreement between the City
and Dublin Crossing Venture LLC related to the Dublin Crossing Project. The specific Development
Agreement items include:
• Modifying the total amount and timing of the Community Benefit Payment contributions;
• Requiring that the Project Developer help the City with pursuing a small expansion of the
Community Park footprint along Scarlett Drive;
• Requiring that the Project Developer install hydroturf on four acres of the future school /park site
within the project area;
• Project Developer agreement to purchase a wetland mitigation easement over the City -owned
parcel adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail and south of Dublin Boulevard to preserve the property as
open space; and
• Project Developer agreement to accelerate the payment of the Civic Center Component of Public
Facilities Fee due for the entirety of the project.
The modifications to the Development Agreement consist primarily of adjusting the timing and payment of
fees and modifying the responsible party for the completion of certain improvements. The physical
improvements to be completed were previously contemplated, but the amendments to the Development
Agreement modify the timing of the construction of the improvements.
The proposed changes to the project and the associated Development Agreement amendments will result
in the construction of the Dublin Crossing project without increasing the current maximum number of
housing units (up to 1,995) allowed or the maximum amount of commercial square footage allowed to be
built (up to 200,000 square feet). Additionally, a slightly larger amount of parkland will be provided, land
that is currently open space (the City -owned parcel along the Iron Horse Trail) will remain so, the Arnold
Road channel will remain open and aesthetically improved, and the vehicular circulation through and
around the site will remain sufficient to serve the community's needs.
Environmental Checklist
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected by the Project
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Instructions
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific factors
as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based
on a project- specific screening analysis).
All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site,
cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with
mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial
evidence that any effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact"
entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: applies where
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
Earlier Analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, Program El R, or other CEQA process, one
or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15o63(c)(3)(D). In this case, the checklist entry will be "No New Impact" and a discussion should
identify the following on attached sheets:
Aesthetics
Agricultural Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology / Soils
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Land Use / Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population / Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation /
Traffic
Utilities / Service
Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Instructions
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific factors
as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based
on a project- specific screening analysis).
All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site,
cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with
mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial
evidence that any effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact"
entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: applies where
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
Earlier Analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, Program El R, or other CEQA process, one
or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15o63(c)(3)(D). In this case, the checklist entry will be "No New Impact" and a discussion should
identify the following on attached sheets:
a. Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within
the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis.
c. The conclusion of "No New Impact" in this Initial Study means that there are no new or
substantially more severe significant environment impacts that those identified in the Dublin
Crossing EI R and no other standards for subsequent or supplemental environmental review
under CEQA are met.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
No Impact I
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No New
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Issues
Incorpor.
Impact
Impacts
�. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not
limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
X
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
X
of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would
X
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Discussion (Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and EIR, Exhibits A -i and A -2 to this Initial Study)
The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
area, substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher
intensity of development, or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project
was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEIR. The change to the Right of Way (ROW) of Arnold Road does not degrade the
existing visual character and, with the changes proposed as part of the channel restoration, will actually be an aesthetic
enhancement to the existing channel condition. The change to the power lines on Scarlett will also be an aesthetic
improvement over the existing conditions. Lastly, the potential sale of open space for mitigation purposes will not
have any new aesthetic impacts that were not already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR. Overall, the Dublin Crossing
Project remains intact with minor modifications resulting from the Proposed Project. The functionality of the
circulation system remains the same, the number of allowable residential units has not increased, the amount of
allowable commercial square footage has not increased, and the number of students expected to be served by the
future school site has not changed. Therefore, the project would not have any impacts on aesthetics /visual resources
beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR, and therefore no new impacts would result.
z. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to
forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's
inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment
project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California
Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
X
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
X
Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest
land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section
X
4526) or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined
by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
X
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
No Impact I
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No New
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Issues
Incorpor.
Impact
Impacts
non - forest uses?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due
to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
X
Farmland to non - agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non - forest use?
Discussion (Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and EIR)
The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
area, substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher
intensity of development, or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project
was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEIR. There continue to be no forestry or agricultural resources on the project site.
Overall, the Dublin Crossing Project remains intact with minor modifications resulting from the Proposed Project. The
functionality of the circulation system remains the same, the number of allowable residential units has not increased,
the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased, and the number of students expected to be
served by the future school site has not changed. Therefore, the project would not have any impacts on agricultural or
forestry resources beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR, and therefore no new impacts would
result.
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
X
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
X
projected air quality violation?
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
X
quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
X
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
X
people?
Discussion (Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and EIR)
The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
area, substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher
intensity of development, or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project
was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEIR. Overall, the Dublin Crossing Project remains intact with minor modifications
resulting from the Proposed Project. The functionality of the circulation system remains the same, the number of
allowable residential units has not increased, the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,
and the number of students expected to be served by the future school site has not changed. Therefore, the project
would not have any impacts on air quality beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR, and therefore no
new impacts would result.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
X
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
No Impact/
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No New
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Issues
Incorpor.
Impact
Impacts
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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
X
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
X
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
X
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
X
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
X
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
Discussion (Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and EIR, Exhibit A -z to this Initial Study)
The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
area, substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher
intensity of development, or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project
was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEIR. The change to the Right of Way (ROW) of Arnold Road and leaving the
channel open does not have a substantial adverse impact on the biological resources and, with the changes proposed
as part of the channel restoration, will actually be an enhancement to the existing channel condition and habitat value.
The potential sale of open space for mitigation purposes will not have impacts to biological resources that were not
already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR. Lastly, the location and configuration of the power lines along Scarlett
Drive does not have any impacts related to biological resources. Overall, the Dublin Crossing Project remains intact
with minor modifications resulting from the Proposed Project. The location of development remains the same,
functionality of the circulation system remains the same, the number of allowable residential units has not increased,
the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased, and the number of students expected to be
served by the future school site has not changed. Therefore, the project would not have any impacts on biological
resources beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR, and therefore no new impacts would result.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines section
X
15o64.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
X
archaeological resource pursuant to section 15o64.5?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
No Impact I
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No New
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Issues
Incorpor.
Impact
Impacts
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
X
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
X
of formal cemeteries?
Discussion (Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and EIR)
The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
area, substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher
intensity of development, or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project
was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEIR. The change to the Right of Way (ROW) of Arnold Road and leaving the
channel open does not have a substantial adverse impact on cultural resources and, with the changes proposed as part
of the channel restoration, will actually be an enhancement to the existing channel condition. The potential sale of
open space for mitigation purposes will not have impacts to cultural resources that were not already analyzed in the
Dublin Crossing EIR because no development is proposed to take place on the subject property. Lastly, the location and
configuration of the power lines along Scarlett Drive does not have any impacts related to cultural resources. Overall,
the Dublin Crossing Project remains intact with minor modifications resulting from the Proposed Project. The location
of development remains the same, functionality of the circulation system remains the same, the number of allowable
residential units has not increased, the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased, and the
number of students expected to be served by the future school site has not changed. Therefore, the project would not
have any impacts on cultural resources beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR, and therefore no new
impacts would result.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
X
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?
b) Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
c) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction?
X
d) Landslides?
X
e) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
X
f) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
X
potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
g) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life
X
or property?
h) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
X
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater.
Discussion (Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and EIR)
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
No Impact I
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No New
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Issues
Incorpor.
Impact
Impacts
The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
area, substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher
intensity of development, or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project
was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEIR. The change to the Right of Way (ROW) of Arnold Road and leaving the
channel open does not have a substantial adverse impact on geology and soils and, with the changes proposed as part
of the channel restoration, will actually be an enhancement to the existing channel condition. The potential sale of
open space for mitigation purposes will not have impacts to geology and soils that were not already analyzed in the
Dublin Crossing EIR because no development is proposed to take place on the subject property. Lastly, the location
and configuration of the power lines along Scarlett Drive does not have any impacts related to geology and soils.
Overall, the Dublin Crossing Project remains intact with minor modifications resulting from the Proposed Project. The
location of development remains the same, functionality of the circulation system remains the same, the number of
allowable residential units has not increased, the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,
and the number of students expected to be served by the future school site has not changed. Therefore, the project
would not have any impacts on geology and soils beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR, and
therefore no new impacts would result.
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
X
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse
X
gases?
Discussion (Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and EIR)
The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
area, substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher
intensity of development, or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project
was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEIR. The change to the Right of Way (ROW) of Arnold Road and leaving the
channel open does not have a substantial adverse impact on greenhouse gas emissions and, with the changes
proposed as part of the channel restoration, will actually be an enhancement to the existing channel condition. The
potential sale of open space for mitigation purposes will not have impacts to greenhouse gas emissions that were not
already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR because no development is proposed to take place on the subject property.
The location and configuration of the power lines along Scarlett Drive does not have any impacts related to greenhouse
gas emissions. Overall, the Dublin Crossing Project remains intact with minor modifications resulting from the
Proposed Project. The location of development remains the same, functionality of the circulation system remains the
same, the number of allowable residential units has not increased, the amount of allowable commercial square footage
has not increased, and the number of students expected to be served by the future school site has not changed.
Therefore, the project would not have any impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions beyond those already analyzed
in the Dublin Crossing EIR, and therefore no new impacts would result.
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
X
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
X
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
No Impact/
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No New
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Issues
Incorpor.
Impact
Impacts
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within % mile of an
X
existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
X
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment? (V.13)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a
X
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
X
in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
X
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands
X
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Discussion (Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and EIR)
The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
area, substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher
intensity of development, or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project
was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEIR. The change to the Right of Way (ROW) of Arnold Road and leaving the
channel open does not have a substantial adverse impact on hazards and hazardous materials and, with the changes
proposed as part of the channel restoration, will actually be an enhancement to the existing channel condition. The
potential sale of open space for mitigation purposes will not have impacts to hazards and hazardous materials that
were not already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR because no development is proposed to take place on the subject
property. Lastly, the location and configuration of the power lines along Scarlett Drive does not have any impacts
related to hazards and hazardous materials. Overall, the Dublin Crossing Project remains intact with minor
modifications resulting from the Proposed Project. The location of development remains the same, functionality of the
circulation system remains the same, the number of allowable residential units has not increased, the amount of
allowable commercial square footage has not increased, and the number of students expected to be served by the
future school site has not changed. Therefore, the project would not have any impacts related to hazards or hazardous
materials beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR, and therefore no new impacts would result.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
X
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
X
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
No Impact/
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No New
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Issues
Incorpor.
Impact
Impacts
local ground water table level (for example, the production
rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a
X
stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off -site.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
X
surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on-
or off -site.
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems
X
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
X
g) Place housing within a loo -year flood- hazard area as mapped
on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
X
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a loo -year flood- hazard area structures, which
X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of
X
the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
X
Discussion (Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and EIR)
All future construction will need to comply with the requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional
Water Quality Control Board as well as all City of Dublin stormwater treatment and water quality requirements.
The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
area, substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher
intensity of development, or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project
was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEIR. The change to the Right of Way (ROW) of Arnold Road and leaving the
channel open does not have a substantial adverse impact on hydrology and water quality and, with the changes
proposed as part of the channel restoration, will actually be an enhancement to the existing channel condition. The
potential sale of open space for mitigation purposes will not have impacts to hydrology and water quality that were not
already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR because no development is proposed to take place on the subject property.
Lastly, the location and configuration of the power lines along Scarlett Drive does not have any impacts related to
hydrology and water quality. Overall, the Dublin Crossing Project remains intact with minor modifications resulting
from the Proposed Project. The location of development remains the same, functionality of the circulation system
remains the same, the number of allowable residential units has not increased, the amount of allowable commercial
square footage has not increased, and the number of students expected to be served by the future school site has not
changed. Therefore, the project would not have any impacts related to hydrology and water quality beyond those
already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR, and therefore no new impacts would result.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
No Impact/
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No New
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Issues
Incorpor.
Impact
Impacts
io. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
X
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, local coastal
X
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or
X
Natural Community Conservation Plan?
Discussion
The Proposed Project is in conformance with the General Plan, the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, and the site zoning.
There are no adopted Habitat Conservation or Natural Community Conservation Plans in the City of Dublin.
Therefore, the project would not have any impacts related to land use and planning beyond those already analyzed in
the Dublin Crossing EIR, and therefore no new impacts would result.
». 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
X
state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
X
specific plan, or other land use plan?
Discussion
There are no known mineral resources within the City of Dublin or designated in the General Plan or other land use plan,
and therefore there would be no impact.
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess
of standards established in the local general plan or noise
X
ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground
X
borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
c) Substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
X
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
X
project?
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
X
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
No Impact I
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No New
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Issues
Incorpor.
Impact
Impacts
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area
X
to excessive noise levels?
Discussion (Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and EIR)
The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
area, substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher
intensity of development, or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project
was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEIR. The change to the Right of Way (ROW) of Arnold Road and leaving the
channel open does not have a substantial adverse impact on noise. The potential sale of open space for mitigation
purposes will not have impacts to noise that were not already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR because no
development is proposed to take place on the subject property. Lastly, the location and configuration of the power
lines along Scarlett Drive does not have any impacts related to noise. Overall, the Dublin Crossing Project remains intact
with minor modifications resulting from the Proposed Project. The location of development remains the same,
functionality of the circulation system remains the same, the number of allowable residential units has not increased,
the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased, and the number of students expected to be
served by the future school site has not changed. Therefore, the project would not have any impacts related to noise
beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR, and therefore no new impacts would result.
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
X
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
X
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
X
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion (Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and EIR)
The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
area, substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher
intensity of development, or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project
was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEIR. Overall, the Dublin Crossing Project remains intact with minor modifications
resulting from the Proposed Project. The location of development remains the same, functionality of the circulation
system remains the same, the number of allowable residential units has not increased, the amount of allowable
commercial square footage has not increased, and the number of students expected to be served by the future school
site has not changed. Therefore, the project would not have any impacts related to population and housing beyond
those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR, and therefore no new impacts would result.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physical altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
X
b) Police protection?
X
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
No Impact I
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No New
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Issues
Incorpor.
Impact
Impacts
c) Schools?
X
d) Parks?
X
e) Other public facilities?
X
Discussion (Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and EIR)
The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
area, substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher
intensity of development, or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project
was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEIR. The change to the Right of Way (ROW) of Arnold Road and leaving the
channel open does not have a substantial adverse impact on public services. The potential sale of open space for
mitigation purposes will not have impacts to public services that were not already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR
because no development is proposed to take place on the subject property. Lastly, the location and configuration of
the power lines along Scarlett Drive does not have any impacts related to public services. Overall, the Dublin Crossing
Project remains intact with minor modifications resulting from the Proposed Project. The location of development
remains the same, functionality of the circulation system remains the same, the number of allowable residential units
has not increased, the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased, and the number of students
expected to be served by the future school site has not changed. Therefore, the project would not have any impacts
related to public services beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR, and therefore no new impacts
would result.
15. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
X
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an
X
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Discussion (Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and EIR)
The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
area, substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher
intensity of development, or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project
was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEIR. The change to the Right of Way (ROW) of Arnold Road and leaving the
channel open does not have a substantial adverse impact on parks or recreational facilities. The potential sale of open
space for mitigation purposes will not have impacts to parks or recreational facilities that were not already analyzed in
the Dublin Crossing EIR because no development is proposed to take place on the subject property. Lastly, the location
and configuration of the power lines along Scarlett Drive does not have any impacts related to parks or recreational
facilities. Overall, the Dublin Crossing Project remains intact with minor modifications resulting from the Proposed
Project. The location of development remains the same, functionality of the circulation system remains the same, the
number of allowable residential units has not increased, the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not
increased, and the number of students expected to be served by the future school site has not changed. Therefore, the
project would not have any impacts related to recreation beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR, and
therefore no new impacts would result.
16. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
X
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
No Impact/
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No New
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Issues
Incorpor.
Impact
Impacts
transportation including mass transit and 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?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards established by
X
the county congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in
X
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (for
example, sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
X
incompatible uses (for example, farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
X
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or
X
otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities?
Discussion (Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and EIR, Exhibit A -3 to this Initial Study)
The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
area, substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher
intensity of development, or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project
was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEIR. The change to the Right of Way (ROW) of Arnold Road does not have a
material impact on the functionality of the circulation system as previously designed, as explained in Attachment 3 to
this Initial Study (Memorandum prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants). The potential sale of open space for
mitigation purposes will not have impacts to traffic /transportation that were not already analyzed in the Dublin
Crossing EIR because no development is proposed to take place on the subject property. Lastly, the location and
configuration of the power lines along Scarlett Drive does not have any impacts related to traffic or transportation
facilities in that there will be no impact to Scarlett Drive or Dublin Blvd. that was not already addressed in the Dublin
Crossing FEIR. Overall, the Dublin Crossing Project remains intact with minor modifications resulting from the Proposed
Project. The location of development remains the same, functionality of the circulation system remains the same, the
number of allowable residential units has not increased, the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not
increased, and the number of students expected to be served by the future school site has not changed. Therefore, the
project would not have any impacts related to traffic /transportation beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin
Crossing EIR, and therefore no new impacts would result.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
X
facilities, the construction or which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
X
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
No Impact/
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No New
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Issues
Incorpor.
Impact
Impacts
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
X
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has
X
adequate capacity to serve the project projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
X
related to solid waste?
Discussion (Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and EIR)
The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
area, substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher
intensity of development, or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project
was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEIR. The change to the Right of Way (ROW) of Arnold Road and leaving the
channel open does not have a substantial adverse impact on utilities or service systems. The potential sale of open
space for mitigation purposes will not have impacts to utilities or service systems that were not already analyzed in the
Dublin Crossing EIR because no development is proposed to take place on the subject property. Lastly, the location and
configuration of the power lines along Scarlett Drive does not have any impacts related to utilities or service systems
because the same transmission and distribution facilities will remain in service in slightly different configurations.
Overall, the Dublin Crossing Project remains intact with minor modifications resulting from the Proposed Project. The
location of development remains the same, functionality of the circulation system remains the same, the number of
allowable residential units has not increased, the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,
and the number of students expected to be served by the future school site has not changed. Therefore, the project
would not have any impacts related to utilities and service systems beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin
Crossing EIR, and therefore no new impacts would result.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project:
a) 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
X
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed
X
in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.)
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact I
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant No New
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts
F, CX Have environmental effects, which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion (Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and EIR)
The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
area, substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher
intensity of development, or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project
was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEIR. The change to the Right of Way (ROW) of Arnold Road and leaving the
channel open does not have substantial adverse environmental impacts. Nor will the potential sale of open space for
mitigation purposes because no development is proposed to take place on the subject property. Lastly, the location
and configuration of the power lines along Scarlett Drive will not have substantial adverse environmental impacts -
either individually or cumulatively. Overall, the Dublin Crossing Project remains intact with minor modifications
resulting from the Proposed Project. The location of development remains the same, functionality of the circulation
system remains the same, the number of allowable residential units has not increased, the amount of allowable
commercial square footage has not increased, and the number of students expected to be served by the future school
site has not changed. Therefore, the project would not have any beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing
EIR, and therefore no new impacts would result, no additional environmental degradation would take place, no new
cumulatively considerable impacts would be caused, and no new environmental effects not already studied would be
present.
Exhibits:
Exhibit A -i: Perspectives at Horizon Parkway, dated December 2015 and prepared by Gates and
Associates. An illustrative rendering of the Arnold Road /Horizon Parkway intersection future
improvements and landscaping with the Arnold Road channel remaining open).
Exhibit A -2: Arnold Canal Illustrative, dated December 2015 and prepared by Gates and Associates. An
exhibit that illustrates the details of future improvements along Arnold Road including street right of way
width, channel location and landscaping, and size /location of future bicycle lanes, pedestrian sidewalks,
and trails.
Exhibit A -3: Technical Memorandum on the Results of the Review of Dublin Crossing Road Changes,
dated December 23, 2015 and prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants.
EXHIBIT B
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council of the City
of Dublin makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The City Council has balanced the benefits of the 2013 Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
project (Project) to the City of Dublin against the significant adverse impacts identified in
the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that cannot be reduced to less than significant
through feasible mitigations or alternatives. Pursuant to Section 15093, the City Council
determined that the benefits of the Project outweighed the adverse impacts as part of its
resolution certifying the EIR and adopting environmental findings and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations on November 5, 2013 (via Resolution 186 -13).
The City Council is now considering the environmental impacts of the project as revised
by the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Substantial Conformance Determination, Finding
of Compliance with the Conditions of Approval for VTM 8150, and Amendment No. 2 to
the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement in reaching its decision to approve the
Revised Project. A CEQA Addendum, dated January 5, 2016 has been prepared that
documents that there are no new or substantially more severe significant impacts
resulting from the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement Amendment No. 2 Project
(2016) — Revised Project — as compared to the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Project
(2013) — Original Project.
Even with mitigation, the City Council recognized that implementation of both the
Original Project and the Revised Project carries with it unavoidable adverse
environmental effects as identified in the EIR. The City Council specifically finds that to
the extent the identified significant adverse impacts for the Project are not reduced to
acceptable levels through feasible mitigation or alternatives, there are specific
economic, social, land use and other considerations that support approval of the
Revised Project.
2. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. The following significant unavoidable
air quality and traffic impacts are associated with both the Original Project and the
Revised Project, as identified in the EIR.
Short -term Construction Air Quality — The proposed project would result in future short -
term air quality impacts associated with construction activities, including grading,
operation of equipment, and demolition of existing structures within the project area.
The BAAQMD requires the construction mitigation measures to be implemented at all
construction sites, regardless of size. However, as the proposed project would facilitate
future development and generate construction emissions that could potentially exceed
BAAQMD thresholds, a significant unavoidable impact would occur. (Impact 3.2 -1.)
Long -term Operational Air Quality — The total unmitigated operational emissions
associated with buildout of the proposed project would exceed the BAAQMD thresholds
for ROG, NOx, PM 10, and PM2.5. With application of the measures /design features
regarding area and mobile source emissions within the Specific Plan, operational
emissions would still exceed the thresholds for ROG, NOx, and PM10. The proposed
project could also result in exposure of sensitive land use in excess of applicable Toxic
Air Contaminant standards, even with mitigation. Therefore, these would be considered
significant and unavoidable impacts. (Impacts 3.2 -3, 3.2 -5.)
Long -term Operational Impacts to Freeway Ramps — The proposed project would result
in a significant impact to the following freeway ramps: Southbound Hacienda Drive to 1-
580 Eastbound On -ramp under project and cumulative conditions and Southbound
Tassajara Road to 1 -580 Westbound On -ramp under cumulative conditions. Mitigation
measures 3.12 -7 would require modification of the ramp metering rates so that more
vehicles could access the freeway. However, the freeway ramps are operated by
Caltrans, which sets metering rates based on overall operations in the freeway corridor.
As the cities surrounding the 1 -580 corridor continue to build out and additional parallel
east/west connectors such as the Stoneridge Drive and Dublin Boulevard extensions
are completed, it is likely that the ramp meter rates would change over time to
accommodate the demand on both the freeway ramps and freeway segments. Because
the future metering rates cannot be predicted with certainty, the project impacts to
freeway ramps would be considered a significant and unavoidable impact. (Impact 3.12-
7.)
3. Overriding Considerations. The City Council has carefully considered each
impact in reaching its decision to approve the Revised Project. The City Council now
balances those unavoidable impacts against its benefits, and hereby determines that
the unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the Revised Project as
further set forth below. Any one of these benefits is sufficient to justify approval of the
Revised Project. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found
in the record as a whole.
The Revised Project will continue to facilitate development of an infill area, fully served
by public utilities, and convenient to major arterials, services, BART and public transit.
The Revised Project includes medium and medium -high density residential and
commercial uses to make more efficient use of its infill location and proximity to transit
facilities.
The Revised Project will continue to allow the City to assist the School District in
acquiring a site for a school in the project area to serve the community.
The Revised Project continues to includes design standards for residential and
commercial uses as well as streetscapes that will result in an attractive and vibrant
community. The Revised Project emphasizes higher density, compact development
patterns appropriate to its location near the BART station and the Iron Horse Trail where
a diverse mix of uses would be readily accessible through alternative transport modes.
It also emphasizes pedestrian level development where walking and bicycling would be
safe, feasible alternatives to automobile trips within the Project area and to or from
2
nearby neighborhoods, transit and commercial uses. Development standards and
design guidelines provide measures for ensuring attractive, visually appealing
development of private projects and public spaces.
The Revised Project continues to include a significant residential component that will
assist the City in meeting its Housing Element RHNA goals. The potential housing will
be at densities complementary to existing residential and non - residential uses in the
area. The Project will also provide funding for future construction and maintenance of a
30 -acre community park and 5 -acre joint -use neighborhood park. This amount of
parkland and funding exceeds what the Project would otherwise be required to provide.
The Project provides an elementary school site. In addition, the developers will
contribute $23.5 million in an accelerated timeframe to the City for use on municipal
capital projects and other benefits as part of the Development Agreement relating to the
Project.
The Revised Project includes the enhancement of the channel along Arnold Road to
provide a naturalized look to that edge of the community in addition to wildlife habitat
value that was not originally planned to be included.
The Project includes the potential for up to 200,000 square feet of revenue producing
commercial development that will create new jobs and sales and property taxes. The
Project is also expected to have a fiscally beneficial impact on the City's financial and
services resources, estimated by the City's financial consultant to be a net benefit of
over $100,000 annually upon full build out. Future development of the site will provide
construction employment and permanent employment opportunities for Dublin
residents.
The Project provides an effective means to implement the City's objectives for the area,
as described in the Specific Plan and EIR. For all of the above reasons, the benefits of
the Revised Project outweigh its significant unavoidable air quality and traffic impacts.
2438727.1
3