HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.1 Downtown Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments (PLPA-2019-00036)Page 1 of 9
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: November 12, 2019
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT:
Downtown Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments (PLPA-
2019-00036)
Prepared by:Amy Million, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Planning Commission will consider and make a recommendation to the City
Council regarding the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and related General
Plan Amendment. Proposed changes to the include increasing the allowable
commercial floor area ratio in th e Transit-Oriented and Retail Districts, combining the
allowable residential dwelling unit allocation into one pool for all three districts, and
amending the parking standards for the Village Parkway and Transit-Oriented Districts.
No specific development is proposed at this time. An Addendum to the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared that concludes that all potential environmental
effects were adequately addressed in the original EIR.
RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct the public hearing, deliberate and adopt a Resolution recommending that the
City Council adopt an Addendum to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR and
approve amendments to the General Plan and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan to allow
an increase of the allowable commercial floor area r atio in the Transit-Oriented and
Retail Districts, combine the residential dwelling unit allocation into one pool for all three
districts, and amend the parking standards for the Village Parkway and Transit -Oriented
Districts.
DESCRIPTION:
Background
The overarching goal of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) is "to create a
vibrant, dynamic commercial and mixed -use center that provides a wide array of
opportunities for shopping, services, dining, working, living, and entertainment in a
pedestrian-friendly and aesthetically pleasing setting that attracts both local and
regional residents."
The DDSP established three distinct districts, each including its own set of design
standards tailored to the envisioned uses. A map of the DDSP area and districts is
provided in Figure 1.
5.1
Packet Pg. 7
Page 2 of 9
The Transit-Oriented District embraces the West Dublin BART station and is the
district where the vast majority of the new residential development in Downtown Dublin
has taken place. The Retail District includes much of the existing retail core and aims
to stimulate infill development and redevelopment of aging buildings and large parking
areas. The Village Parkway District embraces the existing successful service and
retail uses along a “Main Street” corridor, and this distri ct has the most potential to
reutilize and re-tenant existing buildings with more intense uses such as restaurants,
service retail, and other local-serving businesses.
One of the Guiding Principles of the DDSP is to
consider more flexible and appropria te parking
standards that reflect verifiable demand and
consider the transit‐oriented land uses in the
area.
Since its adoption in February 2011, City Staff
has been implementing the goals and policies of
the DDSP and the subsequent
recommendations of the two Urban Land
Institute (ULI) Technical Assistance Panel (TAP)
reports from July 2011 and April 2018.
In 2012, the City Council approved a two -year Pilot Parking Program in the Village
Parkway District to allow parking supply and demand to be managed by the property
owners and tenants, instead of being regulated by the City. It has become the
responsibility of the property owners, property managers, and businesses to lease
tenant spaces to the right combination of users to ensure that there is suffici ent parking
to serve the businesses and their customers. The Pilot Program waived the
requirement that uses within the Village Parkway District provide a specified number of
on-site parking spaces. The goal was to enable a wider variety of businesses to b e
established in the Village Parkway District without the encumbrance of parking
requirements. In 2014, the City Council extended the program for five additional years.
Given the success of the Pilot Parking Program, in 2018, the City asked the ULI TAP to
make a recommendation on expanding the Village Parkway Parking Program in other
areas of the Downtown. The ULI report confirmed that expanding the program to the
remainder of the Downtown would be a positive element that could provide certainty for
future development. The ULI report further recommended that any parking program be
written in a way that is flexible and continue to identify opportunities for decreased
parking standards, including shared parking.
Staff is proposing to implement the ULI report recommendations in two phases. The
first phase, which is the subject of this Staff Report, continues the Village Parkway
District parking program in perpetuity and establishes a reduced parking standard for
hotels and office uses in the Transit-Oriented District, described in further detail below.
The second phase requires an in-depth parking analysis and will be brought back to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration at a later date . This second
5.1
Packet Pg. 8
Page 3 of 9
phase would consider parking reductions for other commercial uses within the Transit-
Oriented District and Retail District.
The April 2018 ULI TAP report also recommended focusing on adding housing units
within a half-mile radius of BART, and more specifically, the Retail District. This
recommendation would help implement the Guiding Principle of the DDSP to
“encourage development that will create a vibrant and dynamic downtown that is
considered an attractive and distinctive amenity to the Tri ‐Valley Region.”
In response to the ULI TAP recommendations and the Guiding Principles of the DDSP,
Staff is proposing to amend the DDSP to: 1) increase the allowable commercial floor
area ratio in the Transit-Oriented and Retail Districts; 2) combine the allowable
residential dwelling unit allocation into one pool for all three districts; and 3) amend the
parking standards for Village Parkway and Transit -Oriented Districts. The amendment
to the commercial floor area ratio also requires a corresponding amendment to the
General Plan.
ANALYSIS:
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Floor Area Ratio Amendments
The DDSP specifies a maximum amount of non -residential development capacity that
is allowed within the DDSP as shown in Table 1. below.
Table 1. Allowable New Non-Residential Development in DDSP
DISTRICT NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Retail 543,850 s.f.
Transit-Oriented 1,622,960 s.f. (plus 150 hotel rooms)
Village Parkway 20,730 s.f.
Total 2,262,540 s.f. (includes 150 hotel rooms)
The total amount of non-residential development capacity is held within a “Development
Pool”. The DDSP allows a “base” amount of development, or floor area ratio (FAR) on
each parcel by right. If a property owner would like to develop beyond the base FAR,
they may obtain additional square footage from the “Deve lopment Pool” up to the
maximum allowed FAR. In order to access the Development Pool, a property owner
must enter into a Community Benefit Agreement (CBA) with the City, which requires
them to provide a community benefit to the City.
Due to the urban nature of the Transit-Oriented and Retail Districts and their proximity
to the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, there is an opportunity to encourage a
greater mix of development by increasing the maximum allowable FAR for these two
districts. The development community has indicated to the City that greater flexibility in
the development standards would provide more development opportunities. Please
see Table 2 below for the existing and proposed FAR.
5.1
Packet Pg. 9
Page 4 of 9
Table 2. Allowable FAR in DDSP
DISTRICT BASE FAR MAXIMUM FAR
(Existing)
MAXIMUM FAR
(Proposed)
Retail 0.35 0.6 2.0
Transit-Oriented 0.50 1.2 2.5
Village Parkway 0.35 0.35 No Change
The proposed FAR would not increase the total amount of non -residential development
within the DDSP area, but would instea d provide greater development potential on
individual parcels. For example, on a parcel that is 100,000 square feet in size, the
maximum commercial development potential in the Retail District would increase from
up to 60,000 square feet to 200,000 square feet and for the Transit-Oriented District
from 120,000 square feet to 250,000 square feet. The proposed amendment would not
change the base FAR.
Allowable Residential Development Pool Amendment
Similar to non-residential square footage, the DDSP specifies a maximum of 2,500
residential units allowed within the DDSP area (Table 3. below). The units are allocated
to the three districts in various amounts with the greatest number of units allocated to
the Transit-Oriented District. In order to access the Development Pool, the property
owner is required to enter into Community Benefit Agreement, similar to accessing the
non-residential development pool.
In order to provide more flexibility throughout the DDSP, Staff is proposing to combine
the residential unit allocation into one pool. This amendment provides for a more
market-driven approach where the units can be allocated to developments anywhere
within the DDSP. While it is anticipated that a greater number of units will continue to
be developed near the BART station in the Transit-Oriented District, it would provide
additional opportunity within the other two districts. This combined allocation would not
exceed the maximum of 2,500 units currently allowed and would continue to require
units to be allocated from the pool by the City Council.
Table 3. Allowable Residential Development in DDSP
DISTRICT UNIT ALLOCATION
(Existing)
COMBINED ALLOCATION
(Proposed)
Retail 400
2,500 Transit-Oriented 1,900
Village Parkway 200
Total 2,500 2,500
Parking Amendments
Transit-Oriented District – Hotel and Office Uses
5.1
Packet Pg. 10
Page 5 of 9
Based on an evaluation of the parking standards in other transit-oriented developments
(TOD) or downtown areas with close proximity to a major transit station, as well as the
ULI panel recommendation, Staff is proposing to reduce the parking standards for hotel
and office uses only.
Cities that have TODs and transit priority areas (TPA) often reduce the parking
requirements in recognition of the public transit opportunities in the area. For example,
the City of Concord reduced the parking standard by 25 percent within the TOD. The
City of Fremont parking standards in the TOD district include not only a reduced
minimum parking requirement, but also a maximum parking requirement. Oakland
proposed a 30 percent reduction for developments within one-half a mile from a major
transit stop.
One of the most applicable standards for the TOD applies to all BART -owned property
around BART stations (Assembly Bill (AB) 2923). AB 2923 requires that developmen t
standards meet or exceed the standards in the 2017 BART TOD Guidelines which
includes a parking requirement for office uses of 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet for
the Neighborhood or Town Center BART stations. Both Dublin BART stations are
classified by BART as Neighborhood or Town Center stations.
A summary of the parking requirements for office and hotel uses near transit in TODs
and TPAs is provided in Table 4 below. In order to create a simple comparison, the
parking requirement for office uses was converted into ‘per 1,000 square feet of gross
floor area’ and any percentage reduction allowed by the City’s Ordinance was included.
Table 4. Parking Requirements for Office and Hotel Uses near Transit
CITY / AGENCY
OFFICE
per 1,000 square feet of
gross floor area
HOTEL
per room
Dublin 2.86 – 4
(depending on size)
1
(plus ancillary uses)
Livermore 2.5
(if shared) -
Pleasanton 3.19 1
(plus employee)
Walnut Creek 3.33 -
Concord 2.5 .75
(plus ancillary uses)
Sacramento 2.0 .25
(plus ancillary uses)
San Jose 2.5 .35
Berkeley 2 .33
(plus employee)
BART TOD Guidelines 2.5 -
5.1
Packet Pg. 11
Page 6 of 9
CITY / AGENCY
OFFICE
per 1,000 square feet of
gross floor area
HOTEL
per room
MTC Suburban Center 2 – 3 -
Excessive parking requirements make development more expensive and discourage
high density development while encouraging sprawl. As properties in the Downtown
intensify, the ULI studies recommended examining whether the traditional parking
requirements should continue to apply in all cases. Hotel and office uses were
identified due to the numerous studies and reports available that focus on these two
land uses. As shown in the Table 4, cities and agencies are developing standards for
parking that point towards a reduction for these uses near transit centers.
For hotels, the City of Dublin recently conducted a project-specific analysis for Westin
Hotel, where the parking requirement due to the hotel’s location near the transit center
resulted in a reduction to .82 spaces per room. The parking analysis included a field
parking demand evaluation of similar hotel sites in the Bay Area to develo p a basis for
estimating expected parking demand, which included the Pleasanton Marriott, Walnut
Creek Marriott and Westin Palo Alto.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers’ current Parking Generation Manual (ITE
Parking Generation Manual) also supports the proposed reduced rate for parking. As
per this manual the average rate for hotel uses is 0.83 spaces per occupied room. The
data is from 17 sites in mostly urban/sub-urban settings. Additionally, it indicated that
the peak parking demand for hotels occurred during the hours of 11:00 pm and 8:00
am, which is usually the lowest parking demand period for other commercial and office
uses.
Staff is recommending the following parking requirements for hotel and office uses in
the Transit-Oriented District:
• Hotel - 0.85 spaces per room. For hotels with assembly space equal to or greater
than 10,000 square feet, additional parking need will be evaluated based on the
intended use and the peaking time of parking demand.
• Office - 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.
Village Parkway District – Incorporating the Parking Program
As previously stated, the Village Parkway District parking program was first approved as
a pilot program in 2012. Based on the continued success of the program, Staff is
proposing to continue the Village Parkway District parking program in perpetuity and
incorporated into the DDSP.
The parking requirements for the Transit-Oriented District and Village Parkway District
are provided in the Development Standards and Desi gn Guidelines section of the
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. The proposal is to amend the language as follows (the
proposed new text is underlined):
5.1
Packet Pg. 12
Page 7 of 9
Transit Oriented District (p. 64)
6. Parking
Requirement
1.5 spaces (covered or uncovered) per residential unit. Guest
parking should also be provided up to 15% of the total
parking amount. Additional parking for residential units does
not require additional amenities discussed in 1. Surface
Parking, above
No parking requirement for outdoor dining areas.
Excessive surface parking is strongly discouraged. If parking
exceeds the minimum standard (see row 6) by 10 percent or
more, at least one of the following measures shall be
incorporated into the surface parking area:
• Increase the number of shade trees provided to a ratio
of 1 tree per 3 parking spaces;
• Divide surface parking areas into at least 2 smaller
parking lots divided by a landscaped planter that is at
least 10 feet in width (these parking areas may be
connected by drive aisles); or
• Provide a double row of trees (with shrubs and
groundcovers surrounding them) between the
sidewalk and surface parking area (where parking lots
are permitted near sidewalks).
Hotel parking is 0.85 spaces per room. For hotels with
assembly space greater than 10,000 square feet, additional
parking may be required.
Office parking is 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross
floor area.
All other uses shall provide parking per the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance.
The parking requirements for the Transit -Oriented District and Village Parkway District
are provided in the Development Standards and Design Guidelines section of the
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. The proposal is to amend the language as follows (the
proposed new text is underlined):
Village Parkway District (p.73)
Per the requirements in Chapter 8.76: Off‐Street Parking and
Loading Requirements in the Zoning Ordinance.
No parking requirement for outdoor dining areas.
No parking requirement for commercial uses occupying
existing buildings
New commercial buildings are required to provide parking
spaces at the rate of 1 space per 300 square feet of gross
5.1
Packet Pg. 13
Page 8 of 9
6. Parking
Requirement
building area, regardless of the future commercial use of the
building.
Excessive surface parking is strongly discouraged. If parking
exceeds the minimum standard (see row 6) by at least 10
percent, at least one of the following measures shall be
incorporated into the surface parking area:
• Increase the number of shade trees provided to a
ratio of 1 tree per 3 parking spaces;
• Divide surface parking areas into at least 2 smaller
parking lots divided by a landscaped planter that is at
least 10 feet in width (these parking areas may be
connected by drive aisles); or
• Provide a double row of trees (with shrubs and
groundcovers surrounding them) between the
sidewalk and surface parking area (where parking lots
are permitted near sidewalks).
All other uses shall provide parking per the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance.
All on-site parking spaces shall be considered “required
parking” for the purposes of administering Chapter 8.76 of
the Dublin Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise determined by
the Community Development Director.
The Planning Commission Resolution recommending approval of the Downtown
Specific Plan Amendments is included as Attachment 1 with the City Council
Resolution included as Attachment 2 (Exhibit A to Attachment 1).
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT:
General Plan Table 2.1 (Land Use Development Potential: Primary Planning Area) will
need to be updated to reflect the increase i n floor area ratio. The proposed
amendments to Table 2.1 of the General Plan are detailed in the Resolution
recommending City Council adoption of the General Plan Amendment (Attachment 2).
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
In accordance with State law, a public notice was published in the East Bay Times and
posted at several locations throughout the City. A notice of this hearing was also mailed to
all property owners and tenants in the DDSP area, those with 300 feet of the DDSP
boundaries, and all persons who have expressed an interested in being notified of
meetings.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
5.1
Packet Pg. 14
Page 9 of 9
In 2010, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared to address potential
environmental impacts of the DDSP. The DDSP EIR (SCH# 2010022005) was
prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was
certified by the City Council on February 1, 2011.
An Initial Study was prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts of allowing
an increase in the allowable commercia l floor area ratio in the Transit-Oriented and
Retail Districts and combining the allowable residential dwelling unit allocation into one
pool for all three districts of the DDSP. Parking is not considered an impact under
CEQA so amending the parking standards for Village Parkway and Transit-Oriented
Districts does not result in a CEQA issue. All of the environmental impact sections were
examined, no new significant environmental impacts were identified, and no substantial
increases in the severity of previously-identified impacts were discovered.
To document the findings of the Initial Study, an Addendum was prepared, which
concludes that the potentially significant effects of the project were adequately
addressed in the prior EIR, notes the project cha nges, and notes their relation to the
analysis in the prior EIR. The CEQA Addendum is included as Attachment 3.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Recommending Adoption of the GPA and DDSPA
2. Exhibit A to Attachment 1 City Council Resolution
3. CEQA Addendum
5.1
Packet Pg. 15
RESOLUTION NO. 19-xx
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN AND
DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW AN INCREASE OF THE ALLOWABLE
COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA RATIO IN THE TRANIT-ORIENTED AND RETAIL DISTRICTS,
COMBINE NEW RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT ALLOCATION INTO ONE POOL FOR ALL
THREE DISTRICTS AND AMEND THE PARKING STANDARDS FOR THE VILLAGE
PARKWAY AND TRANSIT-ORIENTED DISTRICTS
PLPA-2019-00036
WHEREAS, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) project area is located in the
southwestern portion of the City and is approximately 284 acres in size. The project area is
generally bound by Village Parkway to the east, Interstate 580 to the south, San Ramon Road to
the west, and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north; and
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2011, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 09-11
approving the DDSP and associated implementation actions. At the same time, the City Council
adopted Resolution No. 08-11 certifying the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Environmental
Impact Report (SCH# 2010022005, incorporated herein by reference). The DDSP
Environmental Impact Report evaluated the potential impacts associated with intensifying
development in the 284-acre Downtown Dublin area to accommodate additional residential and
non-residential uses; and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2014, City Council adopted an amendment to the DDSP to
increase the number of residential units permitted in Downtown Dublin by 1,200 and decrease
the amount of commercial square footage permitted by 773,000 square feet, to create minimum
density thresholds for the Transit-Oriented and Retail Districts, to restrict residential
development west of San Ramon Road in the Retail District, and including other minor
amendments (Resolution No. 49-14); and
WHEREAS, since the adoption of the DDSP in February 2011, City Staff have been
working to implement the goals and policies of both the DDSP and the subsequent
recommendations of the two Urban Land Institute (ULI) Technical Assistance Panel (TAP)
reports from July 2011 and April 2018 ; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project focuses on implementing the ULI TAP
recommendations and guiding principles of the DDSP, which includes amendments to the
General Plan and DDSP to allow an increase in the allowable commercial floor area ratio in the
Transit-Oriented and Retail Districts, combine new residential dwelling unit allocation into one
pool for all three districts, and amend the parking standards in the Village Parkway and Transit-
Oriented Districts, hereafter referred to as the “2019 DDSP Amendment” or the “Project;” and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State
guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that certain projects be
reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 1. Resolution Recommending Adoption of the GPA and DDSPA (DDSP Amendments)
2
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum, dated October
31, 2019, incorporated herein by reference, was prepared, which describes the 2019 DDSP
Amendment and its relation to the analysis in the DDSP EIR; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated November 12, 2019, and incorporated herein by
reference, described and analyzed the 2019 DDSP Amendment, including the associated
General Plan Amendment and CEQA Addendum, for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the
Project, including the proposed General Plan Amendment, on November 12, 2019, at which
time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the DDSP EIR and CEQA Addendum,
all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve amendments to the General Plan and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, as
shown in Exhibit A, based on findings that the amended Specific Plan will continue to be
consistent with the Dublin General Plan, as amended.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of November 2019 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
________________________________
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Assistant Community Development Director
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 1. Resolution Recommending Adoption of the GPA and DDSPA (DDSP Amendments)
1
RESOLUTION NO. xx - 19
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
_____________________________________________________
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW
AN INCREASE IN THE ALLOWABLE COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA RATIO IN THE
TRANSIT-ORIENTED AND RETAIL DISTRICTS, COMBINE NEW RESIDENTIAL DWELLING
UNIT ALLOCATION INTO ONE POOL FOR ALL THREE DISTRICTS AND AMEND THE
PARKING STANDARDS FOR THE VILLAGE PARKWAY AND TRANSIT-ORIENTED
DISTRICTS
PLPA-2019-00036
WHEREAS, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) project area is located in the
southwestern portion of the City and is approximately 284 acres in size. The project area is
generally bound by Village Parkway to the east, Interstate 580 to the south, San Ramon Ro ad to
the west, and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north; and
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2011, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 09-11
approving the DDSP and associated implementation actions. At the same time, the City Council
adopted Resolution No. 08-11 certifying the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact
Report (SCH# 2010022005, incorporated herein by reference). The DDSP Environmental Impact
Report evaluated the potential impacts associated with intensifying development in the 284-acre
Downtown Dublin area to accommodate additional residential and non -residential uses; and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2014, City Council adopted an amendment to the DDSP to increase
the number of residential units permitted in Downtown Dublin by 1,200 and decrease the amount
of commercial square footage permitted by 773,000 square feet, to create minimum density
thresholds for the Transit-Oriented and Retail Districts, to restrict residential development west of
San Ramon Road in the Retail District, and including other minor amendments (Resolution No.
49-14); and
WHEREAS, since the adoption of the DDSP in February 2011, City Staff have been
implementing the goals and policies of both the DDSP and the subsequent recommendations of
the two Urban Land Institute (ULI) Technical Assistance Panel (TAP) reports from July 2011 and
April 2018; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project focuses on implementing the ULI TAP recommendations
and guiding principles of the DDSP, which includes an amendment to the General Plan and
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan to allow an increase in the allowable commercial floor area ratio
in the Transit-Oriented and Retail Districts, combine new residential dwelling unit allocation into
one pool for all three districts, and amend the parking standards in the Village Parkway and
Transit-Oriented Districts, hereafter referred to as the “2019 DDSP Amendment” or the “Project ;”
and
WHEREAS, consistent with section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the City
obtained a contact list of local Native American tribes from the Native American Heritage
Commission and notified the tribes on the contact list of the opportunity to consult with the City on
the proposed General Plan Amendment. None of the contacted tribes requested a consu ltation
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 2. Exhibit A to Attachment 1 City Council Resolution (DDSP Amendments)
2
within the 90-day statutory consultation period and no further action is required under section
65352.3; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State
guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that certain projects be
reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum, dated October
31, 2019, incorporated herein by reference, was prepared, which describes the 2019 DDSP
Amendment and its relation to the analysis in the DDSP EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the
Project, including the proposed General Plan and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendments,
on November 12, 2019, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 19-XX recommending that
the City Council amend the General Plan and DDSP to allow an increase in the allowable
commercial floor area ratio in the Transit-Oriented and Retail Districts, combine new residential
dwelling unit allocation into one pool for all three districts, and amend the parking standards in the
Village Parkway and Transit-Oriented Districts, and including other minor amendments, which
Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal
business hours; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated __________, and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the 201 9 DDSP Amendment, including the associated General Plan
Amendment and CEQA Addendum , for the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed p ublic hearing on the 2019 DDSP
Amendment, including the associated General Plan Amendment, on ________, at which time all
interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the DDSP EIR and CEQA Addendum, all above-
referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds that the General Plan
amendments, as set forth below, are in the public interest and that the General Plan as amended
will remain internally consistent.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves the following
amendments to the General Plan:
Table 2.1 shall be revised as follows: (Only the section of the table related to the DDSP area is
shown here. All other sections of Table 2.1 remain the same):
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 2. Exhibit A to Attachment 1 City Council Resolution (DDSP Amendments)
3
Table 2.1 Land Use Development Potential: Primary Planning Area
Downtown
Dublin
Specific Plan
Area
Acres Dwelling
Units/acre
Dwelling
Units
Persons/Dwelling
Unit Population
Downtown
Dublin 230.2 6.1-25.1+ 2,500 2.7 6,750
Downtown
Dublin
Specific Plan
Area
Acres
Maximum
Floor Area
Ratio (Gross)
Maximum
Potential
Square Feet4
Square
Feet/employee Jobs
Village
Parkway
District
32.9 .35 .50 200-450 1,115-2,508
Retail District 113.1 2.0 9.94 200-450 6,139-13,814
Transit-
Oriented
District
84.2 2.5 9.24 200-450 8,492-19,108
Total: 230.2 19.6 15,746-35,430
4 Maximum Development Potential in the Retail and Transit-Oriented Districts were modified by the 2014
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (City Council Resolution No. 49-14)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves the following
amendments to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan:
Table 3-3 shall be revised as follows:
Table 3-3: Base and Maximum FAR Per District
DISTRICT BASE
FAR
MAXIMUM
FAR
Retail 0.35 2.0
Transit-
Oriented 0.50 2.5
Village
Parkway 0.35 0.35
Table 3-3 shall be revised as follows:
Table 3-3: Net New Development
DISTRICT NON -RESIDENTIAL
(SF)
RESIDENTIAL
(DU)
MINIMUM
RESIDENTIAL
DENSITY
Retail 543,850
2,500
22 units/net acre
Transit-
Oriented
1,622,960
(+150 hotel rooms) 30 units/net acres
Village
Parkway 20,730 No minimum
Total 2,262,540
(includes 150 hotel rooms)
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 2. Exhibit A to Attachment 1 City Council Resolution (DDSP Amendments)
4
Notes Includes projects that have been approved, but not yet
constructed
Table 3-4 shall be revised as follows:
Table 3-4: Net New Development
DISTRICT
NON -
RESIDENTIAL
(SF)
RESIDENTIAL
(DU)
MINIMUM
RESIDENTIAL
DENSITY
Retail 543,850
2,500
22 units/net acre
Transit-
Oriented
1,622,960
(+150 hotel
rooms)
30 units/net
acres
Village
Parkway 20,730 No minimum
Total
2,262,540
(includes 150
hotel rooms)
Notes Includes projects that have been approved, but not yet
constructed
Table 6-1 shall be revised as follows:
Table 6-1: Development Pool
DISTRICT
NON -
RESIDENTIAL
SQUARE
FOOTAGE
NUMBER OF
RESIDENTIAL
DWELLINGS
Retail 175,170
2,500
Transit-
Oriented
1,145,050
(+150 hotel
rooms)
Village
Parkway 0
Page 57 Section 4.1 Retail District Development Standards, 1 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) shall
be revised as follows:
BUILDING DESIGN
1 Floor Area Ratio
(FAR)
0.35 base
2.0 max (required participation in the development density pool, an agreement with the
City, and provision of a community benefit in compliance with the Community Benefit
Program)1
Page 64 Section 4.2 Transit Oriented District Development Standards, 6 Parking
Requirements shall be revised as follows:
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 2. Exhibit A to Attachment 1 City Council Resolution (DDSP Amendments)
5
PARKING REQUIREMENTS
6 Parking
Requirements
1.5 spaces (covered or uncovered) per residential unit. Guest parking should also
be provided up to 15% of the total parking amount. Additional parking for residential
units does not require additional amenities discussed in 1: Surface Parking, above
No parking requirement for outdoor dining areas.
Excessive surface parking is strongly discouraged. If parking exceeds the minimum
standard (see row 6) by 10 percent or more, at least one of the following measures
shall be incorporated into the surface parking area:
◼ Increase the number of shade trees provided to a ratio of 1 tree per 3 parking
spaces;
◼ Divide surface parking areas into at least 2 smaller parking lots divided by a
landscaped planter that is at least 10 feet in width (these parking areas may be
connected by drive aisles); or
◼ Provide a double row of trees (with shrubs and groundcovers surrounding
them) between the sidewalk and surface parking area (where parking lots are
permitted near sidewalks).
Hotel parking is .85 spaces per room. For hotels with assembly space greater than
10,000 square feet, additional parking may be required.
Office parking is 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.
All other uses shall provide parking per the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
Page 66 Section 4.2 Transit Oriented District Development Standards, 1 Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) shall be revised as follows:
BUILDING DESIGN
1 Floor Area Ratio
(FAR)
0.50 base
2.5 max (required participation in the development density pool, an agreement with the
City, and provision of a community benefit in compliance with the Community Benefit
Program)1
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 2. Exhibit A to Attachment 1 City Council Resolution (DDSP Amendments)
6
Page 73 Section 4.3 Village Parkway District Development Standards, 6 Parking
Standards shall be revised as follows:
PARKING REQUIREMENTS
6 Parking
Requirements
Per the requirements in Chapter 8.76: Off-Street Parking and Loading
Requirements in the Zoning Ordinance.
No parking requirement for outdoor dining areas.
No parking requirement for commercial uses occupying existing buildings
New commercial buildings are required to provide parking spaces at the rate of
1 space per 300 square feet of gross building area, regardless of the future
commercial use of the building.
Excessive surface parking is strongly discouraged. If parking exceeds the
minimum standard (see row 6) by at least 10 percent, at least one of the
following measures shall be incorporated into the surface parking area:
◼ Increase the number of shade trees provided to a ratio of 1 tree per 3
parking spaces;
◼ Divide surface parking areas into at least 2 smaller parking lots divided by a
landscaped planter that is at least 10 feet in width (these parking areas may
be connected by drive aisles); or
◼ Provide a double row of trees (with shrubs and groundcovers surrounding
them) between the sidewalk and surface parking area (where parking lots
are permitted near sidewalks).
Uses proposing to occupy existing buildings are not required to provide a
prescribed number of parking spaces for any commercial use that is permitted
or conditionally permitted in the Downtown Dublin Zoning District. New buildings
that are proposed to be constructed are required to provide parking spaces at
the rate of 1 space per 300 square feet of gross building area, regardless of the
future commercial use of the building. All on-site parking spaces within the
Village Parkway District shall be considered “required parking” unless otherwise
determined by the Community Development Director.
All other uses shall provide parking per the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
All on-site parking spaces shall be considered “required parking” for the
purposes of administering Chapter 8.76 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance unless
otherwise determined by the Community Development Director.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ____day of _____, 2019 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 2. Exhibit A to Attachment 1 City Council Resolution (DDSP Amendments)
7
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 2. Exhibit A to Attachment 1 City Council Resolution (DDSP Amendments)
2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Analysis
October 31, 2019
Planning Application Number: PLPA-2019-00036
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Addendum | Page 1
10/31/19
2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Addendum
October 31, 2019
Project Description
The City has initiated a second amendment (2019 DDSP Amendment) to the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan (DDSP). The 2019 DDSP Amendment consists of three revisions:
Modification to the Floor Area Ratio
The 2019 DDSP Amendment would increase the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) for commercial
uses from 0.6 to 2.0 in the Retail District, and from 1.2 to 2.5 in the Transit Oriented District
(TOD). The FAR in the Village Parkway District would remain unchanged a t 0.35.
The maximum limit of 2,187,540 square feet of allowable commercial new development within
the DDSP project area would remain unchanged and, therefore, no additional development
from that previously approved would occur.
Since approval of the DDSP, 61,029 square feet of commercial space has been developed and
2,126,511 square feet remain in reserve.
Combine Residential Allocation
The 2019 DDSP Amendment would combine the remaining allocation of new residential
dwelling units from each district into one total allocation for the entire DDSP project area.
There would be no change in the maximum limit of new residential development (2,500 units),
as previously approved.
Since approval of the DDSP, a total of 1,282 residential units have been constructed and 1,218
units remain in reserve.
Parking Reduction/Amendments
The 2019 DDSP Amendment includes a modification to the parking standards for hotels to
require .85 spaces per room and for office uses to require 2.5 per 1000 square feet of gross
floor area in the TOD and continuation of the parking program in the Village Parkway District in
perpetuity. The Pilot Parking Program which was first approved in 2012 stated that all
commercial use types in the Village Parkway District are not required to provide a prescribe d
number of parking spaces for any use that is permitted or conditionally permitted in the
Downtown Dublin Zoning District. New buildings that are proposed to be constructed in the
Village Parkway District are required to provide parking spaces at the rate of one space per 300
square feet of gross building area, regardless of the future commercial use of the building. All
on-site parking spaces within the Village Parkway District shall be considered “required parking”
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Addendum | Page 2
10/31/19
for the purposes of administering Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.76 unless otherwise
determined by the Community Development Director.
It should be noted that parking is not considered an impact under CEQA so the change in
parking standards does not result in a CEQA issue.
Prior CEQA Analysis
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR
The DDSP was adopted by the Dublin City Council in February of 2011 with the intent of
encouraging development within the downtown area that would be more conducive to a
walkable, mixed-use, and vibrant community. The boundaries of the DDSP encompassed
boundaries of five other specific plans that were dissolved when the DDSP was adopted. The
DDSP includes three distinct districts (Retail, Transit Oriented, and Village Parkway Districts),
with separate development standards for each.
The DDSP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2010022005) was certified by the Dublin
City Council concurrent with approval of the DDSP in 2011 (City Council Resolution Nos 08-11
and 09-11). The EIR analyzed the environmental impacts of potential development associated
with the DDSP in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Amendment #1
Subsequent to the adoption of the DDSP and certification of the DDSP EIR, the City amended
the DDSP by increasing the total allowable number of new residential dwelling units and
decreasing the total allowable commercial square footage. For residential development, the
total allowable development increased from 1,300 dwelling units to 2,500 dwelling units, for a
net increase of 1,200 dwelling units. Conversely, the total non-residential development (e.g.
retail, office, services, etc.) decreased from 3,035,540 square feet (sf.) to 2,187,540 sf., for a net
decrease of 773,000 sf.
Apart from this reallocation of land uses, no other amendments were made to the DDSP.
Existing development standards that regulate building height, setback standards, floor area
ratio, parking, etc. remained unchanged. Similarly, all design guidelines that regulate the urban
design and preferred aesthetic character remained the same, as did mobility and infrastructure
plans, and administration and implementation requirements.
Amendment #1 required a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment, both of which were
reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the Dublin City
Council in 2014. An Addendum to the previously certified EIR and supporting Initial Study was
prepared as part of this Amendment #1 and was adopted by the Dublin City Council (Resolution
No. 50-14).
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Addendum | Page 3
10/31/19
Proposed CEQA Analysis in this Document
The City of Dublin has determined that an Addendum to the DDSP EIR is the appropriate CEQA
review for the project. This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15164 for the project. The City prepared an Initial Study dated October 31, 2019, incorporated
herein by reference, to assess whether any further environmental review is required for this
Project. Through this Initial Study, the City has determined that no subsequent EIR or Neg ative
Declaration is required per the following:
No Subsequent Review is Required per CEOA Guidelines Section 15162
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 identifies the conditions requiring subsequent environmental
review. After a review of these conditions, the City has determined that no subsequent EIR or
Negative Declaration is required for this project. This is based on the following analysis:
a) Are there substantial changes to the Project involving new or more severe significant
impacts?
There are no substantial changes to the project as analyzed in the DDSP EIR. The project
is similar to land uses for the project area analyzed in the DDSP EIR and there is no change
in the maximum amount of commercial square footage or residential units permitted
under the DDSP. As demonstrated in the Initial Study, the project does not constitute a
substantial change to the DDSP EIR analysis, will not result in additional significant
impacts, and no additional or different mitigation measures are required.
b) Are there substantial changes in the conditions which the Project is undertaken involving
new or more severe significant impacts?
There are no substantial changes in the conditions assumed in the DDSP EIR, as amended.
The project will not change the allocation nor amount of development as previously
analyzed. This is documented in the attached Initial Study.
c) Is there new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not
have been known at the time of the previous EIR that shows the Project will have a
significant effect not addressed in the previous EIR; or previous effects are more severe; or,
previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible but the applicant declined to
adopt them; or mitigation measures considerably different from those in the previous EIR
would substantially reduce significant effects but the applicant declines to adopt them?
As documented in the attached Initial Study, there is no new information showing a new
or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the prior CEQA documents .
Similarly, the Initial Study documents that no new or different mitigation measures are
required for the project. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the
Project. The CEQA documents adequately describe the impacts and mitigations
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Addendum | Page 4
10/31/19
associated with the proposed development on portions of the Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan area.
d) If no subsequent EIR-level review is required, should a subsequent negative declaration be
prepared?
No subsequent Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration is required
because there are no significant impacts of the project beyond those identified in the
DDSP EIR, as documented in the attached Initial Study.
Conclusion
This Addendum is prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 based on the attached
Initial Study. The Addendum and Initial Study review the proposed amendment s to the DDSP as
discussed above. Through the adoption of this Addendum and related Initial Study, the City
determines that the above minor changes do not require a subsequent or supplemental EIR or
Negative Declaration under CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 .
The City further determines that the DDSP EIR adequately address the potential environmental
impacts of the 2019 DDSP Amendment.
As provided in Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Addendum need not be circulated for
public review, but shall be considered with the prior environmental documents before making a
decision on this project.
The Initial Study, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and EIR and the previous Amendment #1
are incorporated herein by reference and are available for public review during normal business
hours in the Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA.
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
2019 DDSP Amendment
Environmental Checklist/Initial Study
October 31, 2019
Planning Application Number: PLPA-2019-00036
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study | Page i
10/31/19
Table of Contents
Background & Project Description 1
Environmental Checklist 7
Determination 10
Environmental Analysis 11
List of Tables
Table 1: DDSP Amendment #1 Net New Development 4
Table 2: Remaining Dwelling Units Allocated and Non-Residential Development
in the DDSP 5
List of Figures
Figure 1: Project Location 2
Figure 2: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Districts 3
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 1
10/31/19
2019 DDSP Amendment
Background & Project Description
Project Title
2019 DDSP Amendment (PLPA-2019-00036)
Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Contact Person and Phone Number
Amy Million
Principal Planner
Phone: 925/833-6610
Amy.Million@dublin.ca.gov
Project Location
The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) project area is located in the southwestern portion
of the City of Dublin and is approximately 284 acres in size. The project area is generally bound
by Village Parkway to the east, Interstate 580 to the south, Sa n Ramon Road to the west, and
Amador Valley Boulevard to the north. There are some partial boundary limits that extend
beyond those roadways, most notably portions of San Ramon Road and Amador Valley
Boulevard, and all of the Village Parkway, which are located within the Specific Plan area. See
Figure 1: Project Location.
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 2
10/31/19
Figure 1: Project Location
Project Applicant’s/Sponsor’s Name and Address
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
General Plan Designation
Downtown Dublin – Village Parkway District
Downtown Dublin – Transit-Oriented District
Downtown Dublin – Retail District
Zoning
DDZD – Downtown Dublin Zoning District
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 3
10/31/19
Project Background
Background and Intent
The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) was adopted by the Dublin City Council in February
of 2011 with the intent of encouraging development within the downtown area that would be
more conducive to a more walkable, mixed-use, and vibrant community. The boundaries of the
DDSP encompassed boundaries of five other specific plans that were dissolved when the DDSP
was adopted. The DDSP includes three distinct districts (Retail, Transit Oriented, and Village
Parkway Districts), with separate development standards for each. See Figure 2: Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan Districts.
Figure 2: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Districts
The DDSP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2010022005) was certified by the Dublin
City Council concurrent with approval of the DDSP in 2011. The EIR analyzed the environmental
impacts of potential development associated with the DDSP in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 4
10/31/19
Amendment #1
Subsequent to the adoption of the DDSP and certification of the DDSP EIR, the City amended
the DDSP by increasing the total allowable number of new residential dwelling units and
decreasing the total allowable commercial square footage. For residential development, the
total allowable development increased from 1,300 dwelling units to 2,500 dwelling units, for a
net increase of 1,200 dwelling units. Conversely, total non-residential development (e.g. retail,
office, services, etc.) decreased from 3,035,540 square feet (sf.) to 2,187,540 sf., for a net
decrease of 773,000 sf. These amended development limits for each district is shown in Table
1: DDSP Amendment #1 Net New Development
Apart from this reallocation of land uses, no other amendments were made to the DDSP.
Existing development standards that regulate building height, setback standards, floor area
ratio, parking, etc. remained unchanged. Similarly, all design guidelines that regulate the urban
design and preferred aesthetic character remained the same, as did mobility and infrastructure
plans, and administration and implementation requirements.
Amendment #1 required a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment, both of which were
reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the Dub lin City
Council in 2014. An Addendum to the previously certified EIR and supporting Initial Study was
prepared as part of this Amendment and adopted by the Dublin City Council.
Table 1: DDSP Amendment #1 Net New Development
Existing1 Proposed2 Difference
District
Non-
Residential
(SF)
Residential
(DU)
Non-
Residential
(SF)
Residential
(DU)
Non-
Residential
(SF)
Residential
(DU)
Retail 737,100 100 543,850 400 (193,250) 300
Transit-
Oriented 2,202,710 1,100 1,622,960 1,900 (579,750) 800
Village
Parkway 20,730 100 20,730 200 -- 100
Total 3,035,540 1,300 2,187,540 2,500 (773,000) 1,200
Notes 1 – Per Table 3-4: Net New Development of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
2 – Per the modifications proposed by DDSP Amendment #1
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 5
10/31/19
Proposed Project
The City has initiated a second amendment (2019 DDSP Amendment) to the DDSP. The 2019
DDSP Amendment consists of three actions:
Modification to the Floor Area Ratio
The 2019 DDSP Amendment would increase the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) for commercial
uses from 0.6 to 2.0in the Retail District, and from 1.2 to 2.5 in the TOD District. The FAR in the
Village Parkway District would remain unchanged at 0.35.
The maximum limit of 2,187,540 sf. of allowable commercial new development within the DDSP
project area would remain unchanged and, therefore, no additional development from that
previously approved would be permitted.
Since approval of the DDSP, 61,029 sf. of commercial space has been developed and 2,126,511
sf. remain in reserve.
Combine Residential Allocation
The 2019 DDSP Amendment would combine the remaining allocation of new residential
dwelling units from each district into one total allocation for the entire DDSP project area.
There would be no change in the maximum limit of new residential development (2,500 units),
as previously approved.
Since approval of the DDSP, a total of 1,282 residential units have been constructed and 1,218
units remain in reserve. See Table 2: Remaining Dwelling Units Allocated and Non-Residential
Development in the DDSP.
Table 2: Remaining Dwelling Units Allocated and Non-Residential Development in the DDSP
Districts Units
Allowed
Units
Constructed
Remaining Dwelling
Units Allocated
SF
Allowed
SF
Constructed
SF
Remaining
Retail 400 95
1,218
543,850 10,329 533,521
Transit
Oriented
District
1,900 1,187 1,622,960 50,700 1,572,260
Village
Parkway
District
200 0 20,730 0 20,730
Total 2,500 1,282 1,218 2,187,540 2,192,540 2,126,511
Source: City of Dublin, 2019
Parking Reduction/Amendments
The 2019 DDSP Amendment also includes a modification to the parking standards for hotels to
require 0.82 spaces per room and for office uses to require two spaces per 1,000 square feet of
gross floor area in the TOD, and continuation of the parking program in the Village Parkway
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 6
10/31/19
District in perpetuity. The Pilot Parking Program which was first approved in 2012 stated that
all commercial use types in the Village Parkway District are not required to provide a prescribed
number of parking spaces for any use that is permitted or conditionally permitted in the
Downtown Dublin Zoning District. New buildings that are proposed to be constructed in the
Village Parkway District are required to provide parking spaces at the rate of one space per 300
square feet of gross building area, regardless of the future commercial use of the building. All
on-site parking spaces within the Village Parkway District shall be considered “required parking”
for the purposes of administering Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.76 unless otherwise
determined by the Community Development Director.
It should be noted that parking is not considered an impact under CEQA so the change in
parking standards does not result in a CEQA issue and is, therefore, not analyzed in this Initial
Study.
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required
None.
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 7
10/31/19
Environmental Checklist
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected by the Project
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agricultural and Forestry
Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water
Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation/Traffic Tribal Cultural
Resources
Utilities/Service
Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings
of Significance
Instructions
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the
parentheses following each question (see Source List, attached). 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).
2. 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.
3. 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
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 8
10/31/19
be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when
the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “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.
5. Earlier Analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other
CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR
or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case 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. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances).
Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,
include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources
used, or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats;
however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist
that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
o The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question;
and
o The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance
10. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the
project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 9
10/31/19
21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun?
Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments,
lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental re view,
identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and
reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process .
(See Public Resources Code section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available
from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per
Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources
Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation.
Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions
specific to confidentiality.
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 10
10/31/19
October 31, 2019
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the project MAY have a potentially significant or a potentially significant unless
mitigated impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed
in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain
to be addressed.
I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required.
X
CITY OF DUBLIN
_____________________ _____________________________
Amy Million, Principal Planner Date
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 11
10/31/19
Environmental Analysis
The discussion below analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the project per the
criteria as described in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section
15162. For convenience, this analysis uses the Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines as a
framework for analysis. As such, the check-boxes in the column labeled “No Impact/No New
Impact” in the tables below indicates that no new environmental review is required because
none of the standards under Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 are met. There are no project changes, new information or change circumstances that
would result in a new or substantial increase in severity of a significant impact from those
identified in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) EIR because the proposed second
amendment would not exceed the maximum allowable land development limits as defined in
the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR (as amended). No standards for requiring supplemental
environmental review under CEQA are met.
Aesthetics
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
/ No
New
Impact
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☒
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not
limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
☒
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its surroundings?
(Public views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic
quality
☒
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Scenic vistas, views
As described in the DDSP EIR, there are no designated scenic vistas in the vicinity of the project
area and, therefore, there would be no impact.
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 12
10/31/19
(b) Scenic resources
With exception to a few undeveloped parcels, the project area is fully developed and there are
no natural or built features that are considered scenic resources.
Portions of the project area are visible from Interstate-680 (an officially designated State Scenic
Highway and a locally designated scenic route), Interstate-580 (a highway eligible for
designation as a State Scenic Highway and locally designated scenic route), and San Ramon
Road (a locally designated scenic route).
As described in the DDSP EIR, all proposed projects visible from Interstate-680 and Interstate-
580 would be subject to design review per polices of the General Plan. Furthermore, specific
projects would be required to comply with the development standards and be consistent with
the design guidelines as identified in the DDSP, which remain unchanged.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts to scenic resources beyond what has been analyzed in the
DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further
environmental review is required.
(c) Substantially degrade the visual character of public views of the site or surrounding area
The project area is located in an urban built-out area and is adjacent to two major interstate
freeways.
The DDSP EIR concluded that impacts to the existing visual character would be less than
significant. The 2019 DDSP Amendment would not change the allowable building heights and
all new development projects would be required to comply with the FAR as amended, all other
existing development standards, and be consistent with the design guidelines as identified in
the DDSP.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or su bstantially
more severe significant impacts to the visual character of public views beyond what has been
analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met.
Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
(d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
The project area is located within an urban area that produces considerable light and glare.
Newly proposed development projects would be required to comply with the DDSP which
includes a number of specific design guidelines that address light and glare.
The DDSP EIR concluded that impacts from light and glare would be less than significant. The
2019 DDSP Amendment would continue to require that all new projects comply with the design
guidelines regarding light and glare.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts to light and glare beyond what has been analyzed in the DDSP
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 13
10/31/19
EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Th erefore, no further
environmental review is required.
Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
/ No
New
Impact
s
2. AGRICULTURE 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. 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 Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
☒
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? ☒
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use? ☒
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a-e) Convert farmland or conflict with zoning
The project area is located in an urbanized setting where there are no agricultural or forestry
resources. As described in the DDSP EIR, agricultural and forestry resources were not analyzed
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 14
10/31/19
as they were determined to be an “effect found not to be significant” and, therefore, there
would be no impact on agricultural and forest resources.
Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.
Air Quality
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
/ No
New
Impact
s
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management district 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 quality plan? ☒
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard?
☒
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? ☒
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors
adversely affecting a substantial number of people? ☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Consistent with air quality plans
As described in the DDSP EIR, short-term air quality impacts associated with construction would
be anticipated with future development projects; however, all development within the project
area would be required to comply with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) control measures identified in the DDSP EIR.
Additionally, the EIR concluded that the DDSP is consistent with population growth assumptions
in the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan and it is anticipated to reduce vehicle miles traveled due to the
DDSP guiding principles to create a walkable, transit-oriented, and mixed-use community. The
2019 DDSP Amendment does not increase the overall development potential in the DDSP. As
such, the it would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan .
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 15
10/31/19
With adherence to required applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or
substantially more severe significant impacts to air quality plans beyond what has been
analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met.
Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
(b) Project Emissions
Because all future development projects would be required to comply with the design
standards in the DDSP and applicable air quality regulations as identified in the DDSP EIR, the
2019 DDSP Amendment would not conflict with or obstruct the air quality plan, violate air
quality standards, nor result in cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substan tially
more severe significant impacts to project emissions beyond what has been analyzed in the
DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further
environmental review is required.
(c) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations and create odors
As described in the DDSP EIR, future development project which generate toxic air
contaminants (TACs) are required to comply with BAAQMD rules, regulations and permitting
requirements. All projects are also required to comply with the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) and implement any applicable toxics control measures (ATCMs).
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations beyond what has been analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards
for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
(d) Odors
As described in the DDSP EIR, odors anticipated within the project area would result from
construction activities and business operations (e.g., odors from restaurants or waste
receptacles). Construction odors would be temporary and are not generally considered
offense. Future uses would be required to comply with City regulations as defined in the Dublin
Municipal Code (Chapter 8.24: Commercial Zoning Districts, Chapter 8.64: Home Occupations
Regulations, and Chapter 8.20: Residential Zoning Districts) which minimize operational odors.
Therefore, impacts would remain less than significant.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts associated with objectionable odors affecting substantial
numbers of people beyond what has been analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no other CEQA
standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is
required.
Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 16
10/31/19
Biological Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
/ No
New
Impact
s
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 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 regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
☒
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally
protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) 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
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
ordinance?
☒
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a-f)
The project area is located in an urbanized setting, is primarily development and has been
disturbed through prior development. As described in the DDSP EIR, biological resources were
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 17
10/31/19
not analyzed as they were determined to be an “effect found not to be significant.” Therefore,
there would be no impact on biological resources.
Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.
Cultural Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
/ No
New
Impact
s
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.5?
☒
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to section 15064.5? ☒
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries? ☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a-c)
The project area is located in an urban setting and most of the area has been disturbed through
prior development. As described in the DDSP EIR, cultural resources were not analyzed as they
were determined to be an “effect found not to be significant.” Therefore, there would be no
impact on cultural resources.
While the likelihood of finding archaeological resources is extremely low, Chapter 8.48
Archaeological Resources Regulations of the City of Dublin Municipal Code outlines a process to
protect archaeological resources and prehistoric or historic artifacts that are discovered during
any construction or excavation.
Additionally, all development projects constructed subsequent to certification of the 2019
DDSP Amendment would continue to be required to comply with Section 7050.5 of the
California Health and Safety Code in the event of the discovery or recognition of any human
remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery during future development activities,
which would require that there be no further excavation or disturbance of the area or any
nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. If the human remains are of
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 18
10/31/19
Native American origin, the coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission
within 24-hours of identification.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts to cultural resources beyond what has been analyzed in the
DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further
environmental review is required.
Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.
Energy
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
/No
New
Impact
s
13. ENERGY. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact
due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
☒
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency? ☒
(a-b) Wasteful consumption of energy resources and c onflict with local plan for renewable
energy
As described in the DDSP EIR, development under the DDSP includes mixed -use, commercial,
and transit-oriented development. The DDSP EIR concluded that construction fuel consumption
associated with the DDSP would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or un necessary than
other similar development projects. Additionally, the public transit services would ensure that
the DDSP would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of
transportation energy. Newly proposed development projects in the DDSP would be required
to comply with all Federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including Title 24
of the California Code of Regulations regarding building energy efficiency standards. The type
of development and maximum development in the DDSP would not change as a result of this
project and, therefore, impacts to energy consumption would remain less than significant.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts to energy resources beyond what has been analyzed in the
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 19
10/31/19
DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further
environmental review is required.
Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.
Geology and Soils
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
/ No
New
Impact
s
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault?
☒
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☒
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? ☒
iv) Landslides? ☒
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☒
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
☒
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life
or property?
☒
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
☒
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 20
10/31/19
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
/ No
New
Impact
s
water disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature? ☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a, i-iii) Seismic hazards
As described in the DDSP EIR, there are three faults within six miles of the project area and
future development projects may be subject to liquefaction. Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 requires
project applicants to consult with a registered geotechnical engineer to complete a site-specific
geotechnical investigation prior to development of individual projects. Compliance with
Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 with respect to ground shaking and liquefaction would continue to
apply, reducing these impacts to less than significant levels.
With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there
would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to seismic hazards beyond
what has been analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review
are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
(a, iv) Landslides
As described in the DDSP EIR, the project area is relatively flat, lacks steep slopes, and is not
within a seismic hazard zone where landslides may occur during a strong earthquake and,
therefore, there would be no impact.
(b) Erosion/topsoil loss
As described in the DDSP EIR, future development could result in soil erosion or loss of top soil
during construction. Mitigation Measures 3.5-1a and 3.5-1b require compliance with the City’s
Public Works Department Policy No. 95-11, NPDES permit process, and the City’s Building Code
requirements. Compliance with Mitigation Measures 3.5-1a and 3.5-1b during construction
would continue to mitigate impacts to soil loss and erosion to less than significant levels.
With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there
would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to erosion/topsoil loss
beyond what has been analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental
review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 21
10/31/19
(c-d) Soil stability
As described in the DDSP EIR, the project area does not exhibit characteristics of expansive
soils; however, site-specific soil evaluations and adherence to City and State building codes
would be required as part of any proposed development.
With adherence applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts to soil stability beyond what has been analyzed in the DDSP EIR
and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further
environmental review is required.
(e) Soil capability to support waste water disposal, including septic
As described in the DDSP EIR, the project area does not exhibit characteristics of expansive soils
and wastewater sewers would be available to all new development projects. Therefore, there
would be no impact.
(f) Paleontological/unique geological resources
As described in the DDSP EIR, the project area is located in an urban setting and has been
disturbed through prior development. There are no identified cultural resources within the
project area and, therefore, there would be no impact to paleontological or unique geologic
resources.
While the likelihood of finding unrecorded and unidentified artifacts is extremely low,
regulatory requirements identified within the DDSP EIR with respect to the discovery of
potential cultural resources during construction would continue to apply.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts to the discovery of potential cultural resources beyond what
has been analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are
met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 22
10/31/19
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
/ No
New
Impact
s
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
☒
b) Conflict with applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a-b) Generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or conflict with GHG plans or regulations
As described in the DDSP EIR, California is a substantial contributor of global greenhouse gases,
emitting over 400 million tons of CO2 a year and that it is not anticipated that any single
development project would have a substantial effect on global climate change.
Greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed project would include emissions from area
sources and mobile sources associated with new projects. While the proposed project would
increase the allowable FAR in the Retail and TOD Districts, the existing maximum non-
residential square footage would remain unchanged. In addition, the proposed project would
not increase the maximum number of new residential units beyond what has been previously
approved and analyzed in the DDSP EIR. Therefore, impacts would remain less than significant,
and no further environmental review is required.
Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan, 2012
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 23
10/31/19
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
/ No
New
Impact
s
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
☒
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
☒
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
¼ mile of an 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 Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
☒
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 safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the project area?
☒
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
☒
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly,
to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a-b) Transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials
As described in the DDSP EIR, new projects could involve the transport, use, disposal, and
release of hazardous materials during construction and may result in the demolition and
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 24
10/31/19
removal of structures which may contain asbestos and/or lead based paints. Mitigation
Measures 3.5-1a, 3.5-1b, and 3.4-1 within the DDSP EIR would continue to apply, requiring
compliance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and preparation of a
stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). Additionally, prior to demolition of structures
constructed prior to 1980 (when asbestos and lead based paints were commonly used), a
qualified environmental specialist shall inspect the buildings to determine presence of asbestos
and/or lead based paints. If found to be present, subsequent permits and approvals would be
required along with the appropriate disposal of the contaminated materials. With
incorporation of these mitigation measures, impacts would remain less than significant.
With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there
would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to the potential release of
hazardous materials beyond what has been analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no other CEQA
standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is
required.
(c) Emit hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school
As described in the DDSP EIR, Nielsen Elementary School (7500 Amarillo Drive, Dublin) is
located within a quarter mile of the project area and new businesses that locate near
residential areas or schools may expose these sensitive uses to greater risk of expos ure to
hazardous materials, wastes, or emissions. However, all new projects would be required to
comply with regulations established by federal, state and local regulatory agencies.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no n ew or substantially
more severe significant impacts to sensitive uses beyond what has been analyzed in the DDSP
EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further
environmental review is required.
(d) Listed as a hazardous materials site
As described in the DDSP EIR, the project area is not located on a hazardous material site
pursuant Government Code Section 65962.5; however, there are seven sites within the project
area that are currently being monitored by the RWQCB. Mitigation Measure 3.4-2 within the
DDSP EIR would continue to apply to new projects and would require the preparation of a
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and subsequent testing. Therefore, impacts would
remain less than significant.
With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there
would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to listed hazardous materials
sites beyond what has been analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards for
supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
(e) Proximity to a public airport
As described in the DDSP EIR, the project area is not located within an airport land use plan or
within the vicinity of a private airstrip and, therefore, there would be no impact.
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 25
10/31/19
(f) Impair implementation of an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan
As described in the DDSP EIR, the proposed project would not impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and,
therefore, there would be no impact.
(g) Expose people or structures to wildland fires
As described in the DDSP EIR, the project area is located in an urbanized area and would not be
subject to potential wildfire hazards and, therefore, there would be no impact.
Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.
Livermore Municipal Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 2012.
Hydrology and Water Quality
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
/ No
New
Impact
s
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface
or groundwater quality?
☒
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
☒
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i). Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site; ☒
(ii). Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or offsite;
☒
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 26
10/31/19
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
/ No
New
Impact
s
(iii). Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
☒
(iv). Impede or redirect flood flows? ☒
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation? ☒
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Violate water quality or waste discharge requirements or degrade surface or groundwater
quality
As described in the DDSP EIR, new project construction could violate water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements. However, Mitigation Measures 3.5-1a and 3.5-1b would
continue to require compliance with the RWQCB and preparation of a SWPPP.
With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there
would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to water quality or waste
discharge requirements beyond what was analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no othe r CEQA
standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is
required.
(b-c) Substantially decrease or interfere with groundwater supplies; Alter existing drainage
patterns re: erosion/siltation, re: flooding, or degrade water quality
As described in the DDSP EIR, the project area is largely developed and served by existing
stormwater facilities. Per RWQCB requirements, new projects would include design features to
increase percolation (thereby decreasing stormwater flows, impact to drainage systems, and
groundwater degradation).
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts to groundwater supplies, existing drainage patterns, flooding or
water quality beyond what has been analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards for
supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required .
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 27
10/31/19
(d) Flood hazard, seiche, or tsunami
As described in the DDSP EIR, the project area is located well inland from the San Francisco Ba y
or other major bodies of water to be impacted by a tsunami or seiche and is not within a
designated dam failure inundation area. Therefore, there would be no impact.
(e) Water Quality
As described in the DDSP EIR, the water source for new projects in the DDSP area would rely on
surface water supplies from the Dublin San Ramon Services District and no local groundwater
supplies. As a result, the project would not conflict with a water quality control or sustainable
groundwater management plan. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.
Land Use and Planning
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ☒
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Physically divide an established community
As described in the DDSP EIR, the DDSP would help ensure greater land use compatibility and
would not physically divide a community. The 2019 DDSP Amendment would maintain the land
use compatibility principals of the DDSP and, therefore, there would be no impact.
(b) Conflict with land use plan, policy, or regulation
While the 2019 DDSP Amendment would provide greater flexibility in location of residential
units within the DDSP, it would not change the total amount of commercial square footage nor
the number of residential units permitted in the DDSP. Therefore, there would be no chan ge to
the analysis of consistency with land use plans, policies and regulations, including the Housing
Element, from that previously analyzed in the DDSP EIR. The 2019 DDSP Amendment would be
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 28
10/31/19
consistent with the DDSP (as amended) as well as the City’s General Plan and Zoning and,
therefore, there would be no impact.
Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.
Mineral Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
/ No
New
Impact
s
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
☒
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a-b) Loss of known or identified mineral resource
As described in the DDSP EIR, mineral resources were not analyzed as they were determined to
be an “effect found not to be significant.” The 2019 DDSP Amendment would be consistent
with the DDSP (as amended) and within the scope of what was analyzed in the DDSP EIR.
Therefore, there would be no impact to mineral resources.
Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 29
10/31/19
Noise
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
/ No
New
Impact
s
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards
of other agencies?
☒
b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels? ☒
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private
airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a-b) Generate noise or vibration exceeding standards
As described in the DDSP EIR, compliance with DDSP design guidelines and development
standards would ensure that new projects do not exceed long -tern stationary noise thresholds.
However, new projects could result in short-term construction-related noise and vibrations that
exceed noise standards for nearby sensitive uses and increased long-term mobile noise sources
(vehicular traffic). Mitigation Measures 3.7-1a and 3.7-1b described in the DDSP EIR would
continue to apply to new projects including the preparation of construction noise management
plans (when applicable) and noise from transporting construction materials. Additionally, new
projects located adjacent to heavily traveled roadways would be required to prepare acoustical
analyses and incorporate site-specific mitigations to limit construction to the less noise
sensitive periods of the day and ensure that proper operating procedures are followed during
construction so that nearby sensitive receptors are not adversely affected by noise and
vibration. Based on these requirements, impacts would remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.7-3 described in the DDSP EIR would continue to apply to new
developments located adjacent to Interstate 580, Amador Plaza Road (between Dublin
Boulevard and St. Patrick’s Way), Dublin Boulevard (between Amador Plaza Road and Village
Parkway; between Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive and between San Ramon Road and
Regional Street) and requires a site-specific acoustical analysis. The mitigation measure requires
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 30
10/31/19
design features to be incorporated into the future development to reduce noise impacts to
noise sensitive land uses.
With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there
would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to exposure to noise
exceeding standards beyond what was analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards
for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required .
(c) Excessive noise level near a public or private airport
The project area is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private
airstrip and, therefore, there would be no impact.
Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.
Livermore Municipal Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 2012.
Population and Housing
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
/ No
New
Impact
s
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
☒
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a, b) Population and Housing
As described in the DDSP EIR, impacts to population and housing was not analyzed as they were
determined to be an “effect found not to be significant.” The 2019 DDSP Amendment would be
consistent with the DDSP (as amended) and within the scope of what was analyzed in the DDSP
EIR. Therefore, there would be no impact.
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 31
10/31/19
Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.
Public Services
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
/ No
New
Impact
s
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 perfor mance objectives for any of
the public services:
a) Fire protection? ☒
b) Police protection? ☒
c) Schools? ☒
d) Parks? ☒
e) Other public facilities? ☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Fire
As stated in the DDSP EIR, new projects would be required to comply with applicable building,
safety, and fire codes, fund on- and off-site improvements, and contribute to the City’s public
facilities fees.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts to fire protection beyond what was analyzed in the DDSP EIR
and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further
environmental review is required.
(b) Police
As stated in the DDSP EIR, new projects would be required to comply with applicable City of
Dublin safety requirements. This includes paying City of Dublin public facility impact fees to
assist in funding new police facilities. Additionally, per Dublin Police Services, future projects
will be required to incorporate various safety and security requirements, including but not
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 32
10/31/19
limited to adequate locking devices, security lighting and ensuring adequate surveillance for
structures and parking areas.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts to police protection beyond what was analyzed in the DDSP EIR
and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further
environmental review is required.
(c) Schools and other public facilities
The 2019 DDSP Amendment would not increase the demand for schools, parks, libraries and
other public facilities because the project would not increase the maximum number of
residential units and commercial square footage beyond what was previously approved
analyzed in the DDSP EIR. The 2019 DDSP Amendment would still be consistent with the
DDSP’s policies to encourage residential development in the downtown. Dublin Unified School
District fees, City public facilities fees, and the DDSP provision for community benefit (e.g.,
gathering spaces) would continue to apply for new projects.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts to schools, parks, libraries and other public facilities beyond
what was analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are
met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required .
Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.
Recreation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
/ No
New
Impact
s
15. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical 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 adverse physical effect on the environment?
☒
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 33
10/31/19
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a, b) Increase the use of existing recreation facilities causing deterioration or require new
recreation facilities
As described in the DDSP EIR, recreation facilities were not analyzed as they were determined
to be an “effect found not to be significant .” The 2019 DDSP Amendment would be consistent
with the DDSP and within the scope of what was analyzed in the DDSP EIR. Therefore, there
would be no impact.
Furthermore, each new development project would be required to pay public facilities impact
fees that will fund the acquisition of parkland and the development of future park facilities.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts to recreation facilities beyond what was analyzed in the DDSP
EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further
environmental review is required.
Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.
Transportation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
☒
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? ☒
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
☒
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☒
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 34
10/31/19
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Conflict with applicable transportation plans standards, including bicycle and pedestrian
facilities
As part of the DDSP, the City amended the City’s General Plan related to acceptable Levels of
Service (LOS) standards within the City to require a LOS of D or better for all intersections
except for intersections within the DDSP area. The objective of this amendment was to balance
vehicular and non-vehicular circulation requirements and, thereby, create a more pedestrian-
friendly downtown.
The CEQA Addendum for Amendment #1 concluded that buildout of the DDSP would result in a
net decrease of 5,005 daily trips and 1,232 PM peak hour trips. Buildout of the DDSP would
generate six percent less daily, and 17 percent less PM peak hour trips because commercial
development generates a greater number of trips than residential development when
compared on a similar square footage basis. In addition, there would be a zero net increase in
AM peak hour trips at buildout as compared to the DDSP.
While the proposed project would increase the allowable FAR in the Retail and TOD Districts,
the existing maximum limit of allowable commercial new development would remain the same.
In addition, the project would not increase the maximum number of residential units beyond
what was previously approved and analyzed in the DDSP EIR. Thus, AM and PM peak hour trip
generation of the proposed project would be equal to or less than the trip generation
previously analyzed in the DDSP EIR and previous Addendum #1.
Additionally, Mitigation Measures 3.9-1 and 3.9-4 as described in the DDSP EIR require support
of Alameda County’s project and program aimed at reducing traffic congestion, development of
Transportation Demand Management Programs, implementation of the City’s policies to use
alternative modes of transportation and working with LAVTA to increase service would
continue to apply to the project. Therefore, impacts would remain less than significant.
With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there
would be no new or substantially more severe significant traffic impacts exceeding standards
beyond what was analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards f or supplemental
review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required .
(b) Conflict with CEQA Section 15064.3 (b)
The City is not required to conduct an analysis of vehicle miles travel (VMT) at this time since it
is not required under State or local law. Therefore, the 2019 DDSP Amendment would have no
impact.
Nonetheless, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop along an
existing high-quality transit corridor are presumed to cause a less-than-significant
transportation impact with regard to VMT under CEQA. The project area is adjacent to the
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and is served by regional transit services.
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 35
10/31/19
(c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
The 2019 DDSP Amendment does not include specific development plans which would
substantially increase hazards nor does it alter roadway design such that implementation of the
proposed project would create sharp curves or dangerous intersections and, therefore, there
would be no impact.
(d) Result in inadequate emergency access
As described in the DDSP EIR, new projects would be required to comply with applicable
building, safety, and fire codes to ensure proper design and adequacy of emergency access.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts regarding emergency access beyond what was analyzed in the
DDSP EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further
environmental review is required.
Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.
Tribal Cultural Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
/ No
New
Impact
s
17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical
resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
☒
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c)
of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
☒
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 36
10/31/19
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The topic of tribal cultural resources is a new category in the CEQA checklist and was not
analyzed in the DDSP EIR. However, mitigation measures related to potential impacts to
historic and archeological resources on the site are described in the Cultural Resources section,
above.
Because the DDSP EIR has been certified, the determination of whether tribal cultural resources
need to be analyzed for this proposed project is governed by the law on supplemental or
subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162
and 15163). Tribal cultural resources are not required to be analyzed under those standards
unless it constitutes "new information of substantial importance, which was not known and
could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete” (CEQA
Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3)).
(a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources
The project area is located in an urban setting and has been disturbed through prior
development. There are no identified historic resources within the project area and, therefore,
there would be no impact.
(b) Significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1
There are no known significant tribal cultural resources within the project area. While the
likelihood of finding archaeological resources is extremely low, Chapter 8.48 Archaeological
Resources Regulations outlines a process to protect archaeological resources and prehistoric or
historic artifacts that are discovered during any construction or excavation.
Furthermore, the 2019 DDSP Amendment would continue to require new projects to comply
with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code in the event of the discovery or
recognition of any human remains in any location other than a ded icated cemetery during
future development activities, which would require that there be no further excavation or
disturbance of the area or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. If
the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the Native American
Heritage Commission within 24-hours of identification.
A letter regarding the proposed project was mailed to sever tribes on August 22, 2019 using a
mailing list provided by the Native American Heritage Commission. No response has been
received to date.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or more severe
significant impacts to tribal cultural resources beyond those previously analyzed in the DDSP
EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further
environmental review is required.
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 37
10/31/19
Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.
Utilities and Service Systems
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
/ No
New
Impact
s
18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new
or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
☒
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
☒
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
☒
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
☒
e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? ☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a and c) Require relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas or telecommunications
facilities and sufficient wastewater capacity
As described in the DDSP EIR, no new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities
would be required and there would be adequate capacity with existing infrastructure.
Additionally, new projects would be required to pay impact fees to fund stormwater
infrastructure. While the proposed project would increase the allowable FAR in the Retail and
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 38
10/31/19
TOD Districts, the existing maximum limit of commercial space would still remain as previously
approved and analyzed. In addition, the proposed project would not increase the maximum
number of residential units beyond what was previously approved and analyzed in the DDSP
EIR.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or more severe
significant impacts to utility resources beyond those previously analyzed in the DDSP EIR and no
other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental
review is required.
(b) Sufficient water supply
As described in the DDSP EIR, there is adequate capacity to service buildout of the DDSP area.
Because the proposed project would not increase the existing maximum allowable commercial
space nor would there be an increase in the maximum number of residential units beyond what
was previously approved and analyzed in the DDSP EIR, there would be no impacts to water
supply. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
(d-e) Adequate landfill and compliance
As described in the DDSP EIR, the project area is served by the Altamont Landfill, which has a
total estimated permitted capacity of 62,000,000 cubic yards and a remaining estimated
capacity of 45,720,000 cubic yards (74 percent capacity). Future development would occur
over an extended period of time and the Altamont Landfill would see an incremental increase in
additional solid waste until ultimate buildout of the project area.
Because the 2019 DDSP Amendment would not increase projected total solid waste generation
because the existing maximum limit of commercial space and residential units would remain as
previously analyzed in the DDSP EIR, there would be no impacts. Therefore, no further
environmental review is required.
Source(s)
City of Dublin. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2010.
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 39
10/31/19
Wildfire
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
/ No
New
Impact
s
18. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☒
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
☒
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment?
☒
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
☒
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a-d) Wildfire and emergency evacuation plans
The topic of wildfire is a new category in the CEQA checklist and was not analyzed in the DDSP
EIR. Since the DDSP EIR has been certified, the determination of whether wildfire and
emergency evacuation plans need to be analyzed for this 2019 DDSP Amendment is governed
by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code section 21166 and
CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163).
Wildfire and emergency evacuation plans are not required to be analyzed under the CEQA
standards for supplemental or subsequent EIRs unless it constitutes "new information of
substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the
previous EIR was certified as complete” (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a)(3)).
Therefore, the impact of wildfire and emergency evacuation plans was known at the time of the
certification of the DDSP EIR. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires
analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. No supplemental environmental
analysis of the project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA.
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 40
10/31/19
Furthermore, the project area is located outside of a very high fire hazard severity (VHFHS)
zone as identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). The
project area is located in an urbanized area and is not located within an area that would be
subject to the requirements of the City’s Wildfire Management Plan (City of Dublin 2002).
In addition, the Alameda County Fire Department, as part of the City’s process, will review all
plans for adequate fire suppression, fire access, and emergency evacuation for all future new
developments.
Source(s)
CALFIRE. 2012. FHSZ Viewer. Accessed September 11, 2019.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project:
a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number 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 in connection
with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.)
☒
c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
☒
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)
City of Dublin 2019 DDSP Amendment
CEQA Initial Study| Page 41
10/31/19
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Substantially degrade the quality of the environment
There are no substantial changes to the project as analyzed in the DDSP EIR. The project is
similar to land uses for the project area analyzed in the DDSP EIR and there is no change in the
maximum amount of commercial square footage or residential units p ermitted under the DDSP.
As demonstrated in this Initial Study, the project does not constitute a substantial change to the
DDSP EIR analysis, will not result in additional significant impacts, and no additional or different
mitigation measures are required.
(b) Cumulative impacts
As described above, there are no substantial changes to the project as analyzed in the DDSP
EIR. Therefore, there would be no cumulative impacts.
(c) Substantial adverse effects on human beings
As described above, there are no substantial changes to the project as analyzed in the DDSP
EIR. Therefore, there would be no substantial adverse effects on human beings.
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: 3. CEQA Addendum (DDSP Amendments)