HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 At Dublin Project (PLPA-2017-00061)Page 1 of 19
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: January 28, 2020
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT:
At Dublin Project (PLPA-2017-00061)
Prepared by:Amy Million, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Planning Commission will receive an overview of the revised At Dublin project. The
original project included the development of up to 665 residential units comprised of
apartments, townhomes and detached small-lot single family homes, up to 400,500
square feet of retail commercial space, and a public park. The revised project includes
development of up to 566 residential units comprised of apartments, detached small -lot
single-family homes and 55 and older age restricted single-family homes, and up to
240,000 square feet of retail commercial space. N o action will be taken or approvals
granted for the project at this meeting. A future public hearing will be scheduled for the
Planning Commission to formally consider the project and a public notice will be
provided.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive presentations from Staff and the Applicant.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background
The At Dublin project is proposed on property formerly owned by the Dublin Land
Company. The 76.9-gross-acre property is located north of I-580 between Tassajara
Road and Brannigan Street and extends to the north of Gleason Drive as shown in
figure 1 below.
7.1
Packet Pg. 55
Page 2 of 19
The property is located in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area and has
Planned Development Zoning (Resolution No. 104 -94) adopted with the EDSP. The
site is generally surrounded by commercial uses to the southwest and southeast and
residential uses to the northwest and northeast.
The site is undeveloped and is generally flat with a slight slope from a higher elevation
at the northerly boundary to a slightly lower elevation towards the southerly boundary.
At one time the property was used for agricultural purposes and has remained vacant
(except for temporary seasonal uses) with low lying native and non-native grasses
turned periodically for the purposes of weed abatement . A small group of trees and
shrubs is located near the corner of Tassajara Road and Central Parkway. No grading
for development purposes has occurred to date.
The majority of the site, excluding the most northerly portion, is located within the
Airport Influence Area (AIA)/Overlay Zoning District. The AIA is a designation by the
Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission. This area is designated as an area in
which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety and/or airspace protection
factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses.
On October 3, 2017, the City Council initiated a General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment Study to evaluate changing the land use designation of the
project site.
On October 30, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 18-24,
recommending City Council deny of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendments and the entirety of the At Dublin project. The Planning Commission
recommended denial on the basis that the proposed project was not in the public’s best
interest, it was inconsistent with the longstanding vision for these parcels which is for
less housing and more office/commercial with a town center feel and walkable
environment.
7.1
Packet Pg. 56
Page 3 of 19
On November 20, 2018, following a request from the Applicant, the City Council
continued the project to an undetermined future date. Subsequently, the Applicant
evaluated potential revisions to the project and on June 4, 2019, the City Council held a
Study Session to receive a presentation by the Applicant regarding those changes. The
Applicant also held a community open house in August 2019 to share the revisions to
the project and receive feedback from the community.
In October 2019, the Applicant submitted a revised project consisting of up to 566
residential units comprised of apartments, detached small-lot single family homes and
55 and older age restricted single-family homes, and up to 240,000 square feet of retail
commercial development.
The revised project is being presented to the Planning Commission as an informational
report prior to bringing the project forward for action. A future public hearing will be
scheduled for the Planning Commission to formally consider the project and make a
recommendation to City Council.
Previous Project
The previous proposed mixed-use project consisted of up to 665 residential units
comprised of apartments, townhomes and detached small-lot single family homes and
up to 400,500 sf of commercial, related infrastructure, a public park and landscape
improvements. Requested land use approvals included a General Plan Amendment,
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Zoning, Site
Development Review Permit, Vesting Tentative Map, Street Vacation, and Development
Agreement.
Current Project
The current project proposes a mixed-use development, which consists of up to 566
residential units and up to 240,000 square feet of commercial uses. The proposed
project is grouped into four planning areas (PA-1, PA-2, PA-3 and PA-4) as show in
Figure 2 below.
Planning Area 1 (PA-1), located south of Dublin Boulevard, is proposed to
accommodate a 240-unit apartment building and mix of retail and regional-serving
commercial uses including a movie theater, off ice building, hotel, gas station, drive-thru
restaurant and a variety of restaurant and retail uses totaling approximately 240,000
square feet.
PA-2 is located between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway and is proposed to
accommodate 196 age-qualified homes for ages 55 years and older. The community
7.1
Packet Pg. 57
Page 4 of 19
would be comprised of 109 single-family detached homes, 87 duet-style homes and a
clubhouse.
PA-3 and PA-4 are located north of Central Parkway and would be comprised of small -
lot single-family detached homes.
To accommodate the project, the Applicant is seeking the following entitlements, which
are described in further detail below:
• General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments
• Planned Development Rezone with Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans;
• Vesting Tentative Maps;
• Vacation of Northside Drive; and
• Development Agreement.
Additional discretionary approvals are required to implement the project; however, they
are not requested at this time. Those include approval of a Site Development Re view
Permit by the Planning Commission for the architectural and site plan details as well as
a Master Sign Program/Site Development Review Permit by the Community
Development Director for the commercial signage.
ANALYSIS:
General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments
The site has several existing General Plan and EDSP land use designations as shown
in Figure 3 and Table 2 below. Most of the site is designated General Commercial with
varying densities of residential along Brannigan Street and Gle ason Drive. The EDSP
assumed average development intensity for each land use designation. As summarized
in Table 2 below, the EDSP anticipated development of 261 residential units and
902,563 square feet of commercial land uses on this site.
7.1
Packet Pg. 58
Page 5 of 19
Table 2. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Anticipated Development
Land Use Designations Acres Res. Units Commercial s.f.
General Commercial 60.3 -- 846,153
Neighborhood Commercial 3.7 -- 56,410
Medium Density Residential 4.3 43 --
Medium High Density Residential 5.3 106 --
High-Density Residential 3.2 112 --
Public/Semi-Public 3.3 -- --
Total 80.11 261 902,563
1The actual project acreage is 76.9 acres which takes into account frontage
improvements and is based on Gross Acreage as defined by the General Plan.
Gross Acreage is the Net Site Area plus 25 feet of the area of the abutting streets.
To accommodate the proposed project, the applicant proposes to simplify the six
existing land use designations interspersed throughout the project site into three
primary land use designations organized in large blocks. The proposed land use
designations, and their respective Planning Areas are shown in Figure 4 below.
In addition to the changes to the land use designations, other minor amendments to the
General Plan and EDSP are necessary for consistency. The amendments include
modifications to the public rights-of-way, such as the vacation of Northside Drive,
reduction to the width of Tassajara Road, extension of Brannigan Street south of Dublin
Boulevard and the widening of Dublin Boulevard.
Planned Development Rezoning
The application includes a Planned Development Rezone with related Stage 1 and
Stage 2 Development Plans. The Planned Development Rezoning for the property
would establish a detailed Development Plan for the site, with specific uses that are
permitted by right, conditionally permitted, and prohibited, the overall development
density and intensity (e.g., floor area ratio, building heights, setbacks) for the site, site
plan and access, and design guidelines. Figure 5 below show a conceptual site plan for
Development Plan. The Applicant is proposing that the Planned Development Zoning
District allow for a variety of retail and service uses to accommodate the proposed
project as well as varying residential densities.
7.1
Packet Pg. 59
Page 6 of 19
As shown in Table 3 below, the maximum amount of development allowed by the
proposed Planned Development Zoning is 240,000 square feet of commercial uses and
566 residential units. The 240,000 square feet includes a 75,000 -square foot-hotel with
155 rooms, 40,000-square-foot medical office building and 125,000 square feet of retail
uses.
Table 3. At Dublin Proposed Development
PA Land Use
Designations Use
Size
(Gross
Acres)
Commercial SF
/ No. of Units
FAR/ Du/Ac
1 Mixed Use
Commercial and
Multi-Family
Residential
23.7 240,000 SF /
240 units .44 FAR1
2 Medium Density
Residential
Single-Family
Residential and
Duplexes
29.4 196 units 6.7 Du/Ac
3 Medium Density
Residential
Single-Family
Residential
23.8 130 units 5.5 Du/Ac
4
TOTAL 76.9 240,000 SF /
566 units
1 The floor area ratio is for the combined commercial and residential uses per the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Planned Development Requirements
Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance establishes the intent, purpose and
requirements of the Planned Development District. The Planned Development
Ordinance contains requirements that ensure the project components will be developed
as a cohesive and complementary project. The Development Plan establishes the
following regulations for use of the subject property: permitted and conditionally
permitted uses, development regulations, including setbacks, floor area ratio, height
limits, and parking requirements, standards and design guidelines, site plan, and other
requirements which regulate the improvement and maintenance of the property. An
overview of the Planned Development Zoning District is provided below. A Site
Development Review Permit will be required prior to development of each neighborhood
and will be subject to Planning Commission review. Detailed design and elevation
drawings will be provided at that time.
7.1
Packet Pg. 60
Page 7 of 19
Site Plan and Development Standards
Planning Area 1
The Development Plan envisions PA-1 as a mixed-use area with a 240 unit multi-family
residential building at the corner of Dublin Boulevard and Brannigan Street and 240,000
square feet of commercial uses on the remaining area. The area is planned for regional
retail with larger buildings in the middle and along the eastern interior property line and
smaller pad buildings including a fuel station and drive -thru restaurant along Tassajara
Road and Dublin Boulevard.
Access to PA-1 would be provided directly from Tassajara Road, Brannigan Street and
a new signalized “T” or 3-way intersection on Dublin Boulevard between Tassajara
Road and Brannigan Street. Brannigan Street, which is currently a private road south of
Dublin Boulevard that serves the Grafton Station shopping center, will become a public
street to accommodate this access as part of the pro ject. Northside Drive, which
currently extends east from Tassajara Road to the stormwater detention basin on the
south side of Grafton Plaza is proposed to be vacated. The proposed signalized
intersection on Dublin Boulevard creates the primary entrance .
The smaller buildings along Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard are envisioned as
single-story retail buildings. The larger format buildings along the eastern property line
and the single building in the building are envisioned as a hotel, office buildin g and
movie theater. The maximum height for PA-1 is 74 feet which is intended to
accommodate the hotel. The apartment building is anticipated to be a four -story building
wrapped around a parking structure, leaving the office and movie theater as the other
buildings anticipated to be taller than single-story retail buildings.
The parking requirement for the mix of uses will default to the requirements for each
land use as stated in the Zoning Ordinance, except for the multi -family residential which
is proposed to be 1.75 spaces per unit. The parking in the commercial areas is intended
to be shared by all commercial users. The residential parking garage is designed to
accommodate all required resident and guest parking.
Planning Area 2
PA-2c is comprised of 196, two-story single-family homes and duplexes. The
community is age restricted to those 55 years and older and includes a centrally located
clubhouse. The Development Plan envisions each home to have a private, two -car
garage accessed from interior alleys. One additional guest parking space is also
provided within the development.
Access would be from Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street. No vehicular access from
Central Parkway or Dublin Boulevard is proposed; however, a midblock pedestrian
crossing on Central Parkway is proposed. This would provide direct pedestrian access
between PA-2 and PA-3 to the north.
Planning Areas 3 and 4
PA-3 and PA-4 are comprised of 130 small-lot two-story single-family homes. Access to
PA-3 would be provided off Brannigan Street and Central Parkway. Access to PA-4
would be from a single driveway on Gleason Drive.
7.1
Packet Pg. 61
Page 8 of 19
Similar to PA-2c, two parking spaces for each unit are provided within private garages ;
however, they are located at the front of the home and accessed fro m the private street
One additional guess space is provided either within the development or on the
adjacent street.
Permitted, Conditional and Temporary Land Uses
The permitted and conditionally permitted uses vary between the different Planning
Areas. An overview of the types of uses for each Planning Area is provided in Table 4
below. A complete list of uses will be included in the proposed Ordinance.
Table 4. Overview of Allowed Uses
Planning
Area (PA)
Permitted Uses Conditional Uses Temporary Uses
PA-1 Offices
Multi-Family Residential
Restaurants
Personal Services
Indoor Recreation
Plant Nursery
Laboratory
Health Services/Clinic
Comedy Club
Hotel/Motel
Service Station
Retail
Theater
Animal Hospital
Car Wash/Detail
Nightclub
Repair Shop
Drive Thru
Arts and Crafts Fair
Christmas Tree Lots
Farmer’s Markets
PA-2 Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Second Units
Home Occupations
Large Family Day Care
Bed and Breakfast
Animal Day Care
Model Home Complex
PA-3 and
PA-4
Single Family Residential
Second Units
Home Occupations
Large Family Day Care
Bed and Breakfast
Animal Day Care
Model Home Complex
Design Theme
The design theme provided in the Planned Development provides the framework for the
future Site Development Review Permits. The architecture for the revised project
utilizes the extensive efforts from the previous project by maintaining the same design
theme which is based on clean, simple lines using natural materials and a classic color
palette. According to the Applicant, the project’s materials, landscapes and architecture
are subtle reflections of farm life, and are guided by the concept of “modern agrarian,”
taking inspiration from Dublin’s agricultural past and California’s wine regions.
7.1
Packet Pg. 62
Page 9 of 19
Illustrative example of single-family residential architecture.
Illustrative examples of multi-family residential architecture.
7.1
Packet Pg. 63
Page 10 of 19
Illustrative example of commercial architecture.
Commercial Area - Tenant Design Criteria
The goal of the architecture in the commercial area is to promote distinct storefronts and
interesting architecture facing the public rights -of-way. In order to promote distinct
storefronts in the commercial areas, the applicant is proposing Tenant Design Criteria to
be included as part of the Planned Development Zoning. The objective of the Tenant
Design Criteria is to allow the maximum expression of a store’s individual personality
and character while maintaining a cohesive design theme throughout the project. The
criteria allows the commercial architecture to be enhanced through an individual
tenant’s brand identity and expression. Examples of the types of enhancements are
architectural canopies and overhangs, decorative lighting, and artisan railings for
outdoor seating areas. The building materials and features proposed as part of the
Tenant Design Criteria were selected to provide guidance to the Site Development
Review Permit and future tenants.
Project Phasing
The project is proposed to be constructed in two phases as shown in Figure 6 and Table
5 below. The proposed phasing plan addresses the development needs of the Applicant,
the interests of the City, as well as places the areas identified in the biological
assessments as having potential wetlands into a separate phase. Although the proje ct is
divided into different phases, the Applicant anticipates that these phases would overlap
with most of the construction happening concurrently.
7.1
Packet Pg. 64
Page 11 of 19
To ensure that the residential portions of the project do not wholly develop in advance of
the retail/commercial portions, the following restrictions would be imposed on the
issuance of permits:
• No building permits shall be issued for development on PA-3 or PA-4 until the
improvement plans for Phase 1 and/or Phase 2 in PA -1 have been approved and
bonds posted.
Table 5. Phasing Plan
Planning
Area Land Use Designations Use Phase
1 Mixed Use Commercial and Apartments 1
1 Mixed Use Commercial 2
2 Medium Density Residential Single Family-Homes and
Duplexes (Age Qualified 55+) 1
3 Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential 2
4 Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential 2
Inclusionary Zoning
Pursuant to the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Chapter 8.68 of the Dublin
Municipal Code), developments of more than 20 residential units are required to set
aside 12.5 percent of the units in the project as affordable units. The City’s regulations
also allow for exceptions commonly referred to as an “alternative method of
compliance.” These exceptions include the payment of fees in lieu of constructing
affordable units, construction of off-site housing projects, land dedication, etc.
The proposed project requests up to 566 units, of which 71 units are required to be
designated as affordable units. The 71 units are assumed to be a mix o f rental units
(apartments) and for-sale (single-family homes and duplexes) and are broken down in
terms of affordability levels as follows: 40 moderate income units (25 for sale and 15
rental), 22 low income units (16 for sale and six rental), and nine very low income units
(rental). The project proposes to satisfy the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Regulations
through various methods, which will be outlined in the Development Agreement
Vesting Tentative Map
The application includes a request for Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) Nos. 8440, 8449
7.1
Packet Pg. 65
Page 12 of 19
and 8452 to create the individual development parcels, identify those areas that would
be reserved as open and/or common space, easements to provide access through the
project site, preliminary grading, drainage, stormwater management and utilities, and
adjacent right-of-way improvements. An overview of the VTM is provided below and
included as Attachment 1 to this report.
VTM No. 8440 pertains to the commercial area south of Dublin Boulevard in PA-1. The
lotting plan creates seven individual parcels for the primary building and defines the
access points from Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard and Brannigan Street as
previously described. The vacation of Northside Drive and the extension of Brannigan
Street are also included.
VTM No. 8449 pertains to the age-qualified community proposed for PA-2 north of
Dublin Boulevard. The lotting plan creates 196 residential parcels in addition to common
area parcels for the private streets, alleys, a clubhouse and perimeter landscape buffer.
The map defines the two access points from Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street. As
previously described, the layout of the neighborhood provides for access to the homes
from alleys creating groups of six homes, except for fourteen in-line parcels that front
along Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway.
VTM No. 8452 is for PA-3 and PA-4 and creates 130 residential parcels in addition to
the common area parcels of the private streets, a small community park and perimeter
landscape buffer. The map defines the two access points for PA-3 on Central Parkway
and Brannigan Street and the single access point off Gleason Road for PA -4. As
previously described the layout of the residential parcels and the private streets provide
for direct access to the two-car garage and front entry of the homes.
Vacation of Northside Drive
The application includes a request to vacate Northside Drive which runs along the south
side of the property just north of I-580. This existing City street provides access from
Tassajara Road to the existing stormwater detention basin adjacent to Grafton Plaza as
well as other City facilities (i.e., culverts). The layout of PA-1 would ensure that the City
would retain access through the project site to the basin and other facilities along
Northside Drive east of the project site. The details regarding the developer’s acquisition
of Northside Drive is provided in the proposed Development Agreement.
Development Agreement
The proposed Development Agreement is one means the City has to assure that the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan goal of new development funding the costs of
infrastructure and service is met. The Development Agreement also provides security
to the developer that the City will not change its zoning and other laws applicable to the
project for five years. Additionally, it is a mechanism for the City to obtain commitments
from the developer that the City might not otherwise be able to obtain.
The Development Agreement runs with the land and the rights thereunder can be
assigned. The draft terms of the proposed Development Agreement have not yet been
finalized but will be similar to those of the previous project. Those terms include an
alternative method of compliance of the City’s affordable housing requirements, a
community benefit payment, vacation of Northside Drive and the extension of Brannigan
Street south of Dublin Boulevard.
7.1
Packet Pg. 66
Page 13 of 19
Details of the Development Agreement will be provided when the Project is considered
by the Planning Commission at the public hearing.
Fiscal Analysis
The General Plan requires that the “fiscal impact of new residential development in the
Eastern Extended Planning Area supports itself and does not draw upon and dilute the
fiscal base of the remainder of the city”.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan expands upon this policy through the following
Financing Goal: “New development in the Specific Plan area should pay the full cost of
infrastructure needed to serve the area and should fund the costs of mitigating adverse
impacts on the City’s existing infrastructure and services.” To thoroughly evaluate the
fiscal impact of the proposed At Dublin project, the City engaged the services of Keyser
Marston Associates (KMA) to prepare a Fiscal Analysis of the project. The Fiscal
Analysis, which was updated to reflect the revised project, confirmed that the project
would be fiscally neutral or better.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLANS, AND ZONING
ORDINANCE:
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Speci fic
Plan as amended. The General Plan allows for a variety of residential and commercial
uses in this area of Dublin which the proposed project will achieve. The General Plan
encourages projects to relate well to the surrounding developments, and the propo sed
project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood that includes residential, public
park, commercial, and office uses.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provides design guidelines to guide development
within the Specific Plan area. The proposed p roject meets the intent of the guidelines
and carefully integrates the development and infrastructure improvements into the
existing fabric of the area. The proposed project is consistent with the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan because the Plan states that regionally-oriented commercial uses should
be located south of Dublin Boulevard and near freeway interchanges where convenient
vehicular access will limit traffic impacts to the rest of Dublin. The Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan provides for a mix of housing types and are strongly encouraged in the
Town Center, which encompasses the area north of Dublin Boulevard.
Intersection Spacing – General Plan
Dublin Boulevard is classified as an arterial street in the General Plan. Arterial streets
are designed to distribute localized trips. The General Plan specifies that intersections
shall be spaced no closer than 750 feet, except in special circumstances, intersection
spacing less than 750 feet may be allowed with the approval of the Public Works
Director/City Engineer. As part of the project review, including the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR), the proposed intersection was evaluated for its impact to the street
network as well as to public safety. The proposed intersection was modified from a full
intersection to a three-way as part of the revised project and both configurations were
evaluated. As a result of this review, the EIR includes a mitigation measure to address
the impacts of the intersection during the peak period of traffic. The mitigation measure
would restrict the movement of vehicles at the intersection out of the project site
providing priority to the vehicles on Dublin Boulevard. This mitigation measure would
ensure that traffic impacts to Dublin Boulevard and public safety are addressed. Based
on the EIR analysis and mitigation measure TR-1, the impacts of the proposed
7.1
Packet Pg. 67
Page 14 of 19
intersection would be reduced to a level of less than significant. With that said, the
spacing of the new intersection is not preferred and so its important to evaluate the
project as a whole and consider both the impacts and the benefits of its inclusion. The
new intersection results in traffic impacts as detailed and addressed in the EIR, provides
a greater level of connectivity between PA -1 and PA-2 and was incorporated into the
application in order to meet the economic and access needs of the development.
Airport Influence Area (AIA)/Overlay Zoning District
The majority of the site, excluding the most northerly portion, is located within the
Airport Influence Area (AIA)/Overlay Zoning District. This area is designated as an area
in which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety and/or airspace
protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those
uses. The AIA is a designation by the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission.
All permitted and conditionally permitted uses set forth in a Planned Development
Zoning District that was adopted and in effect prior to August 2012 are considered to be
“Existing Land Uses” pursuant to the Livermore Municipal Airport ALUCP. The Alameda
County ALUC has no authority over Existing Land Uses unless changes to an Existing
Land Use results in an increase of nonconformity with ALUCP policies. The proposed
Planned Development Zoning District does not include any new land uses beyond what
was allowed in the existing Planned Development Zoning District. More specifically, the
existing and proposed Planned Development Zoning District allows a variety of
residential and commercial uses, including assembly land uses such as a hotel, movie
theater, and other similar uses.
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Standards and Policies – EDSP
The Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards document was adopted by
the City Council in 1996 as a means of implementing the requirements of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan. The Scenic Corridor policies establish standards for projects within
the scenic corridor viewshed. Along the I-580 corridor, the document identified three
critical viewpoints of Dublin’s “Visually Sensitive Ridgelands,” of which Viewpoint 2
looking northeast to the ridgelands from the Tassajara Road/I-580 overpass applies to
the project.
Viewpoint 2 requires that developments to maintain generally uninterrupted views and
have structures that do not extend above the horizon of the Visually Sensitive
Ridgelands for more than 25 percent of the total horizon line. The EIR provides a
detailed analysis of the project’s impacts to the viewpoint and finds that the proposed
development (including the tallest building at 74 feet, the hotel), does not extend above
the horizon of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands for more than 25 percent of the total
horizon line. As shown in updated Figure 5-6: Simulation Viewpoint 5, contained in the
EIR, the revised project shifts the tallest building south and would not extend above the
horizon of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands for more than 25 percent of the total
horizon line.
Semi-Public Facilities Policy - EDSP
In 2004, the City Council adopted a Semi-Public Facilities Policy that requires the
consideration of opportunities for cultural, education and other community services
when reviewing amendments to the land use map of the General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan. The purpose of the Semi-Public Facilities Policy, among others,
was to create a greater sense of community, enrich community identify, increase public
access to community services and anticipate the needs of Dublin’s diverse community.
7.1
Packet Pg. 68
Page 15 of 19
The Policy applies to all General Plan and Easte rn Dublin Specific Plan Amendments
which involve 150 or more single-family housing units and/or 250 or more medium
density or great units. The Policy establishes various standards which encourage, but
do not require, the inclusion of a Semi-Public Facilities at a rate of one acre per 1,000
residences. The proposed project is estimated to generate a population of 1,528
persons (1.5 acres). To meet the intent of the City’s policy, the proposed project is
proposing to make a cash contribution to the City as a community benefit. As provided
in the Development Agreement, the amount of the cash contribution is determined on
how the Developer elects to satisfy the affordable housing requirement. The community
benefit payment can be used at the City Council’s discretion.
Town Center Priority Development Area
The proposed project is located within the Dublin Town Center Priority Development
Area (PDA). This PDA is comprised of a mix of housing types, including single -family
detached, town homes, condominiums and apartments and surrounds the commercial
core for eastern Dublin. The proposed project supports the goals of the PDA through
the development of residential and commercial uses.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
On January 17, 2018, the City released a Notice of Prepa ration for an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) and held a public scoping meeting on January 30, 2018. The City
received four letters regarding the scope of the EIR. Subsequently, a Draft EIR was
prepared and circulated to the public for 45 days. The comm ent period was open from
July 6, 2018, to August 20, 2018. The City received 13 comment letters during the
public review and comment period. Responses have been prepared to each of the
comments received by the City. The comments and associated responses together
constitute the Final EIR.
The Planning Commission considered the EIR at their meeting on October 20, 2018.
An overview of the analysis of the EIR is provided below.
The Draft EIR examined potential environmental impacts resulting from the pro ject in
the following topic areas:
• Aesthetics *
• Biological Resources *
• Cultural and Tribal Resources *
• Geology and Soils *
• Noise *
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials *
• Energy
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use
• Population and Housing
• Public Services and Utilities
• Air Quality
• Transportation
7.1
Packet Pg. 69
Page 16 of 19
The Draft EIR classifies the environmental impacts as follows:
• Class I are significant and unavoidable
• Class II can be reduced to less than significant with mitigation
• Class III are less than significant and do not require mitigation
In summary, the Draft EIR concludes that the project will have potentially significant
impact in eight of the 16 topic areas (note above with “*”) and mitigation measures have
been prepared to reduce the impacts in these areas to a level that is less than
significant (Class II).
There were no potentially significant impacts identified for the six topics areas
(underlined above) and, therefore, no mitigation is required (Class III).
Similar to other infill projects of this size, impacts were identified where, even with the
implementation of mitigation measures, the effects to the environment would still be
expected to be significant (Class I). The identified impacts, noted in italics above, are
related to air quality and transportation. Although mitigation measures were prepared to
reduce the level of the impact, the impacts could not be fully reduced to less than
significant in all instances.
An overview of all the topic areas is provided below.
Aesthetics
To address potential aesthetic impacts associated with the project, simulations from five
viewpoints were prepared and compared to existing conditions. The EIR concluded that
the project would not adversely impact views from a scenic vista or substantially alter
the existing visual character because the building heights, massing and materials are
generally consistent with the surrounding land uses. Potential impacts associated with
light and glare were identified. The Draft EIR identifies mitigation measu re to reduce the
impact to a level of less than significant.
Air Quality
The Draft EIR identifies potentially significant impacts to air quality and includes
mitigation measures. Although mitigation measures were prepared to reduce the level of
the impact, the impacts could not be fully reduced to less than significant in all
instances. The project’s cumulative impact would exceed the air quality thresholds
established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for nitrogen oxides (Nox)
and reactive organic gases (ROG) emissions. The predominant source of NOx
emissions would be mobile sources (i.e., project generated vehicle trips).
Biological Resources
The project site contains approximately 77 acres of non-sensitive ruderal habitat
comprised primarily of disced and mowed areas of disturbed vegetation. These
biological communities are not considered sensitive natural communities or riparian
habitat. The Draft EIR identifies other biological resources such as wetlands and
special status species (e.g., Congdon tarplant, saline clover, burrowing owl, etc.) that
would be impacted by the project and, therefore, identifies mitigation measures to
reduce the project’s impact on these biological resources to a level of less than
significant.
7.1
Packet Pg. 70
Page 17 of 19
Cultural and Tribal Resources
The project site is not listed as a historic site or a tribal resource. Nonetheless, there is
always the possibility that previously unknown historic resources exist below the ground
surface within the project site. As such, development of the project site was determined
to have a potentially significant impact. The Draft EIR identifies mitigation measures to
reduce the impact to a level of less than significant.
Energy
There were no potentially significant impacts identified for energy and, therefore, no
mitigation is required.
Geology and Soils
Geologic-related impacts from development are site-specific and, if properly designed,
would not result in worsening of the environment or public health and safety impacts. As
part of the building permit application, the Applicant is required to submit a design -level
geotechnical report. This report would provide recommendations on the appropriate
level of soil engineering and building design necessary to minimize ground -shaking
hazards. The Draft EIR builds off these existing requirements and requires the Applicant
to submit a design-level geotechnical report to the City of Dublin for review and approval
and implement recommendations under the approved report. The implementation of this
mitigation measure would ensure that the project impacts would be less than significant.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
There were no potentially significant impacts identified for greenhouse gas emissions
and, therefore, no mitigation is required.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As previously noted, the project site is vacant except for seasonal uses. The Draft EIR
identified a limited amount of hazardous materials on the project site, including two five -
gallon buckets of petroleum hydrocarbon, stained soils, and solid waste debris. As such
the Draft EIR identified a mitigation measure to reduce this impact to less than
significant.
Hydrology
There were no potentially significant impacts identified for hydrology and, therefore, no
mitigation is required. Projects, such as the proposed project, involving construction on
sites that are one acre or more are required by regulation to prepare and implement a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that specifies how the discharger will protect
water quality during construction activities
Land Use
There were no potentially significant impacts identified for land use and, therefore, no
mitigation is required.
Noise
The Draft EIR identified potentially significant noise impacts related to project
construction in the short term as well as longer-term noise exposure of future residents
by mobile traffic noise from the adjacent City streets. Similar to other projects in the City
where noise barriers such as patio enclosures and walls are incorporated into the
project design, the proposed project would incorporate these features based on a future
acoustical study as part of the Site Development Review Permit. Residential
neighborhoods adjacent to the project site along Tassajara Road and Gleason Drive are
7.1
Packet Pg. 71
Page 18 of 19
designed with masonry walls along the project frontage to reduce noise impacts on the
residents as well as provide an enhanced aesthetic to the street frontage. Accordingly,
the Draft EIR identifies mitigation measures, including the regulation of construction
equipment and the requirement for an acoustical study demonstrating all residential
units would meet the City’s noise standards. These mitigation measures would reduce
the project noise impacts to a level of less than significant.
Population and Housing
There were no potentially significant impacts identified for population and housing and,
therefore, no mitigation is required.
Public Services and Utilities
There were no potentially significant impacts identified for public services and utilities
and, therefore, no mitigation is required.
Transportation
The project’s vehicle trip generation would result in impacts to the existing street
network as well as the new signalized intersection on Dublin Boulevard. To address the
impacts to existing intersections, mitigation measures are proposed that require the
Applicant to pay the project’s proportionate fair share of the improvements. These
improvements vary by intersection and include such improvements as adjusting signal
timing, ramp metering rates and additional turn lanes. For the new signalize intersection
on Dublin Boulevard, mitigation measure TR-1:1 restricts left turn movements during
peak time periods.
Errata for Revised Project
As previously noted, in October 2019, the Applicant submitted a revised project based
on comments from the community. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, the
City analyzed the revised project and determined that there was no new significant
information or new significant environmental impact as a result of the revised project.
The City prepared an Errata to the EIR to this effect which is included as Attachment 2.
In order to approve the project, the City Council will need to adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations (SOC) that identifies all environmental impacts that cannot
be mitigated and explain why the benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable
environmental impacts. The SOC is required in order to approve the project, if desired,
by a majority of the City Council.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Although not required for informational items, public notice was mailed to all property
owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site. A public notice was also
provided to an expanded area beyond 300 feet, to surrounding residents and
businesses including the following neighboring communities: The Cottages, The Villas,
The Courtyards, Sorrento West, Sonata, a portion of Tassajara Meadows, Grafton
Station, and the Waterford residential and commercial developments and to interested
parties. A public notice also was published in the East Bay Times and posted at several
locations throughout the City. A Planning Application sign was posted on the project site
and the project was also included on the City’s development projects webpage. A copy
of this Staff Report has been provided to the Applicant
ATTACHMENTS:
7.1
Packet Pg. 72
Page 19 of 19
1. Vesting Tentative Map
2. At Dublin Errata January 2020
7.1
Packet Pg. 73
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: 1. Vesting Tentative Map (At Dublin Intro)
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: 1. Vesting Tentative Map (At Dublin Intro)
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: 1. Vesting Tentative Map (At Dublin Intro)
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: 1. Vesting Tentative Map (At Dublin Intro)
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: 1. Vesting Tentative Map (At Dublin Intro)
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: 1. Vesting Tentative Map (At Dublin Intro)
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: 1. Vesting Tentative Map (At Dublin Intro)
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: 1. Vesting Tentative Map (At Dublin Intro)
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: 1. Vesting Tentative Map (At Dublin Intro)
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: 1. Vesting Tentative Map (At Dublin Intro)
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: 1. Vesting Tentative Map (At Dublin Intro)
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: 1. Vesting Tentative Map (At Dublin Intro)
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: 1. Vesting Tentative Map (At Dublin Intro)
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: 1. Vesting Tentative Map (At Dublin Intro)
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: 1. Vesting Tentative Map (At Dublin Intro)
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: 1. Vesting Tentative Map (At Dublin Intro)
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: 1. Vesting Tentative Map (At Dublin Intro)
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: 1. Vesting Tentative Map (At Dublin Intro)
SECTION A-A
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: 1. Vesting Tentative Map (At Dublin Intro)
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: 1. Vesting Tentative Map (At Dublin Intro)
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: 1. Vesting Tentative Map (At Dublin Intro)
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: 1. Vesting Tentative Map (At Dublin Intro)
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: 1. Vesting Tentative Map (At Dublin Intro)
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: 1. Vesting Tentative Map (At Dublin Intro)
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: 1. Vesting Tentative Map (At Dublin Intro)
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: 1. Vesting Tentative Map (At Dublin Intro)
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: 1. Vesting Tentative Map (At Dublin Intro)
At Dublin
Errata to the Final EIR
January 16, 2020
Planning Application Number: PLPA-2017-00061
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page i
1/16/20
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Prior CEQA Analysis 1
At Dublin EIR 1
Findings 2
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088.5(b) 2
Revised Project Description 4
Land Uses 4
Park Standards 6
Circulation and Access 6
Grading 8
Infrastructure 8
Project Phasing 9
Project Approvals 9
Environmental Analysis 10
Aesthetics 10
Air Quality 10
Biological Resources 11
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources 12
Geology and Soils 12
Greenhouse Gas Emissions 13
Hazards and Hazardous Materials 13
Hydrology and Water Quality 14
Land Use and Planning 15
Noise 15
Population and Housing 16
Public Services 17
Transportation/Traffic 17
Utilities and Service Systems 26
Energy Conservation 27
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page ii
1/16/20
List of Figures
Figure 1: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations
Figure 2: Conceptual Site Plan
Figure 3: Phasing Plan
Figure 4: Project Renderings (a-e)
Note: All figures are included at the end of the document.
List of Tables
Table 1: At Dublin – Revised Project Land Use Summary 4
Table 2: New Project Weekday Trip Generation 20
Table 3: New Project Saturday Trip Generation 21
Table 4: Weekday Trip Generation Comparison 2018 vs 2019 21
Table 5: Existing Plus Project Weekday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 22
Table 6: Existing Plus Project Saturday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 22
Table 7: Near-term (2025) Plus Project Weekday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 23
Table 8: Near-term (2025) Plus Project Saturday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 24
Table 9: Long-term (2040) Plus Project Weekday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 25
Table 10: Long-term (2040) Plus Project Saturday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 25
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 1
1/16/20
At Dublin
Errata to the Final EIR
Introduction
This Errata documents changes to the At Dublin Final EIR (the Final EIR) based on proposed
changes to the project. It analyzes changes from the previous At Dublin project (the previous
project) analyzed in the Final EIR to the revised At Dublin project (the revised project) in context
of CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 (b) and concludes that none of the conditions in Section
15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines are met, and recirculation is not required.
Because the revised project represents a lower intensity of use as compared the previous
project, this Errata concludes that there are no substantial changes with respect to the
circumstances under which the revised project would require major revisions of the previous
environmental analysis due to the involvement of new significant environmenta l effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. In addition, the
EIR has not been changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to
comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to
mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project's
proponents have declined to implement. Furthermore, the revised project would be subject to
all applicable adopted mitigation measures from the prior Final EIR.
This Errata summarizes each environmental resource, documenting the characteristics of the
revised project, the CEQA analysis for the previous project, and conclusions as to why no
standards for recirculation are met for the revised project.
Prior CEQA Analysis
At Dublin EIR
On October 3, 2017, the Dublin City Council approved the initiation of a General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to evaluate changing the land use designation of
the project site.
On October 13, 2017, the City received an application for the previous project. As part of the
City’s review of the previous project, staff analyzed the impacts from the land use change;
completed a fiscal impact analysis of the proposed land use changes; conducted environmental
review and prepared an environmental impact report; and prepared an analysis of the previous
project for consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council.
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) was released on July 6, 2018, for a 45-public
review period, which ended on August 20, 2018. The Final EIR, which includes responses to
comments received on the Draft EIR, was released on October 24, 2018.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 2
1/16/20
On October 30, 2018, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to review the previous
project and made a recommendation to City Council to deny the General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Amendments and the entirety of the previous project. On November 20,
2018, following a request from the project applicant (the applicant), the City Council continued
the public hearing to an undetermined future date.
Since the November 20, 2018 meeting, the applicant has considered various land plan revisions
to the project site. The City Council held a Study Session on June 4, 2019 and received a
presentation from the applicant regarding the potential project revisions. No action was t aken
nor were any approvals granted at this meeting.
In October 2019, the applicant submitted revised project materials in response to public
comments received. The revised project results in a reconfiguration of land uses and a
reduction of 114 residential units and a reduction of 214,500 square feet of commercial uses.
Findings
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088.5(b)
This Errata documents whether there are any changes to the environmental impact analysis in
the Final EIR due to the revised project’s changes to the previous project. As discussed below,
these project modifications would not result in new or substantially severe significant impacts
and does not warrant recirculation of the EIR.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires that an EIR that has been made available for public
review, but not yet certified, be recirculated only if significant new information has been added
to the EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5(b), recirculation is not required where
the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant
modifications to an adequate EIR. The relevant portions of CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5
read as follows:
(a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to
the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under
Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term “information ” can
include changes in the revised project or environmental setting as well as additional data or
other information. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is
changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a
substantial adverse environmental effect of the revised project or a feasible way to mitigate or
avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the revised project’s
proponents have declined to implement. “Signif icant new information” requiring recirculation
include, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the revised project or
from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 3
1/16/20
Finding: There are no substantial changes to the revised project as compared to those analyzed
in the At Dublin Final EIR. The revised project land uses on the project site are similar to the
previous project, will not result in any additional significant impacts, and no additional or
different mitigation measures are proposed.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless
mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
Finding: There are no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously
identified in the At Dublin Final EIR. No new mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts
of the revised project.
(3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from
others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the
revised project, but the revised project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
Finding: There are no changes as compared to those assumed in the At Dublin Final EIR project
alternatives or mitigation measures that would lessen the environmental impacts that have
been rejected by the previous project applicant. No new mitigation measures are required to
reduce impacts of the revised project.
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in
nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
Finding: The Draft EIR adequately addressed project impacts and provided a meaningful
opportunity for public comments as evidenced by the comment letters submitted by responsible
agencies and the public. Response to those comments were included in the Final EIR.
(b) Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely
clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.
The information contained in this Errata merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant
changes to the information that has already been presented in the EIR. In addition, the
modifications to the EIR are not significant because the EIR is not changed in a way that
deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse
environmental effect of the revised project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect
(including a feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to
implement. Based on the above, the clarification to the EIR would not result in any new
significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any impact already identified in
the EIR. In addition, this Errata to the Final EIR merely clarifies, amplifies or makes insignificant
refinements to the information that has already been presented in the Final EIR.
Thus, none of the conditions in Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines are met and
recirculation is not required.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 4
1/16/20
Revised Project Description
The applicant has submitted an application for a revised project which would reduce the
number of residential units to 566 consisting of 326 for-sale single-family homes and duplexes
and 240 multi-family apartment homes. The revised project distributes a lower density
residential product across the property north of Dublin Boulevard and concentrating the mixed‐
use/commercial south of Dublin Boulevard. The mixed‐use would allow up to 240,000 square
feet of non‐residential uses and up to 240 residential units. Additionally, the revised project
proposes Planning Area 2 as an age restricted residential community.
As shown in Table 1: At Dublin – Revised Project Land Use Summary, the revised project
proposes a reduction of residential units from 680 units to 566 units, 114 less units as
compared to the previous project. Commercial square footage would be reduced from 454,500
square feet to 240,000 square feet; a reduction of 214,500 square feet as compared to the
previous project.
Table 1: At Dublin – Revised Project Land Use Summary
Land Use Designations Gross
acres1
Residential
Units Du/Acre Floor Area
Ration (FAR)
Commercial
square feet (sf)
Mixed-Use 23.7 240 -- 0.44 240,0003
Medium Density Residential
(55 and older, Age Restricted)
29.4 196 6.7 NA --
Single Family Residential 23.8 130 5.5 NA --
Revised Project Total 76.9 566 5.5 to 6.7 0.44 240,000
Proposed Project2 76.9 680 7.6 to 14.3 0.4 to 0.7 454,500
Difference 0 (114) -- -- (214,500)
1. Gross residential acreage shall be determined by calculating the area of the site and by adding one-half of the area of abutting streets,
provided that that street width used for calculation shall not be less than 25 feet or more than 50 feet. Public or private streets within the
boundaries of the site, as well as streets abutting the site, shall be calculated within the gross acreage total. Gross acreage includes gross
area of PA 1 and Northside Drive (1.6 acre) to be vacated and included in PA 1 project area.
2. Proposed project as defined in the At Dublin Final EIR, 2018, Table 3-2.
3. The 240,000 square feet of commercial includes 75,000 square feet of hotel (155 rooms) and 40,000 square feet of medical office. The
proposed 40,000 square feet of medical office building was assumed to be retail as a worst-case scenario.
Land Uses
As shown in Figure 1: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations, the applicant proposes to
redistribute and simplify the six existing General Plan land use designations to three, organized
into four Planning Areas (PAs). The proposed new General Plan land use designations, from the
south to the north, are: Mixed-Use; Medium Density Residential and Single‐Family Residential.
These land uses are described below and illustrated conceptually in Figure 2: Conceptual Site
Plan.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 5
1/16/20
Mixed Use (PA-1)
Mixed-Use is proposed for approximately 23.7 gross acres in the southern portion of the
project site, comprised of PA-1, south of Dublin Boulevard. The Mixed‐Use designation provides
for the combination of multi-family residential housing and commercial uses with an allowable
FAR of 0.30 to 1.0.
The total amount of commercial uses in PA‐1 is 240,000 square feet and would include a
theater, specialty restaurants, miscellaneous general retail uses, a hotel with up to 155 keys,
and a 40,000-square-foot medical office building.
PA-1 would include approximately 1.05 acres of associated plaza areas. Each plaza would have
its own character, incorporating unique elements in the furniture, planting and lighting. A
central plaza would be designed to accommodate community programs, such as farmers
markets, featured musicians, and holiday events. All plazas would be publicly accessible and
privately owned and maintained by a commercial association.
PA-1 would include a five and a half‐story 215,000-square-foot apartment building with up to
240 units surrounding a five‐story parking garage. The apartments would have approximately
4,000 square feet of ground floor retail and would also include several amenities for the
tenants such as a club room, gym, outdoor courtyards, barbeque areas and pool and spa. The
apartments would accommodate private courtyards/amenities that would serve the apartment
tenants.
The apartments would include both passive and active open spaces. The total common useable
outdoor space would be approximately 0.47 acres, which would account for 20 percent of the
net PA-1 site area. These areas would be owned and maintained by the apartment owner.
Medium Density Residential (PA-2)
Medium density residential is proposed on approximately 29.4 acres in PA‐2, between Dublin
Boulevard and Central Parkway. The density would range from 6.1 to 14.0 units per gross acre.
The revised project consists of196 new age‐qualified homes, comprised of 109 single-family and
87 duet‐style dwellings at a density of 6.7 units per gross acre.
Within PA‐2, the revised project would include an approximately 1.7 acres privately‐owned
open space and buffers. This would include an approximately 1.07-acre private park/open
space in the center that would include a clubhouse and various indoor and outdoor recreational
amenities. These open space areas would be owned and maintained by the homeowners’
association.
It is anticipated that pedestrian and vehicular access to PA-2 would be via a controlled gate.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 6
1/16/20
Single-Family Residential (PA-3 and PA-4)
Single‐family residential is proposed on approximately 23.8 gross acres on the northerly portion
of the project site within PA‐3 and PA‐4, between Central Parkway to the north side of Gleason
Drive. The land use designation allows for a density would range from 0.9 to 6.0 units per gross
acre. The revised project includes a total of 130 single‐family detached units at density of 5.5
units for gross acre. These units would not be age-qualified.
PA‐3 and PA‐4 would include an approximately 1.81 acres of parks and open space buffers.
Walls would be interior to the open space buffers to enhance the open space features and
connectivity to the community. These open space areas would be owned and maintained by
their respective homeowners’ association.
Park Standards
Based on City standards, the revised project would be required to provide 3.54 acres of public
Community Parks and 1.82 acres of public Neighborhood Parks, for a total of 5.36 acres. While
not credited to the revised project’s public open space requirement, approximately 7.69 acres
of privately‐owned open spaces would be included as part of the revised project as either
parks, plazas, courtyards or buffers.
These open space areas, together with the public open space areas would connect the project
site to surrounding neighborhoods and Emerald Glen Park to the west.
Circulation and Access
The revised project would contain several ingress/egress access points from public roadways.
Private streets would be incorporated to allow for access to the interior residential, commercial
and mixed‐use developments. Due to the lower traffic volumes and limited vehicular access,
private streets may be designed with a narrower profile and where the blocks are short and
would have low traffic volumes, may not include featu res typically associated with public
streets including sidewalks and on‐street parking. All internal streets and roadways would be
privately owned and maintained by the respective owner association.
The revised project proposes the following changes to the adjacent off-site roadways:
▪ Tassajara Road – add an exclusive northbound right turn lane into the project driveway
to PA-1 located between Dublin Boulevard and WB I-580 ramps.
▪ Intersection of Dublin Boulevard and new traffic signal between Tassajara Road and
Brannigan Street:
o Would be a three-legged intersection by removing the north leg into PA-2.
o Would subsequently remove the eastbound left turn lane at this intersection .
o No crosswalk on the west leg of this intersection is proposed.
o Would add an exclusive eastbound right turn lane into PA-1.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 7
1/16/20
▪ Intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Brannigan Street :
o Only one eastbound left turn lane needed.
o Southbound approach can be a left turn lane and a shared through -right turn
lane, as opposed to a southbound left turn lane, through lane, and right turn
lane.
To accommodate the modified land uses, the revised project would modify ingress and egress
to the four planning areas as follows:
▪ PA-1
o Two driveways along Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard, whereas the
previous project proposed three driveways.
▪ PA-2
o Access on Dublin Boulevard would be removed.
o The previously proposed unsignalized driveway along Tassajara Road between
The Shops and Dublin Boulevard would be removed .
o The two previously proposed driveways on Central Parkway would be removed.
▪ PA-3
o The one access on Central Parkway would remain but be relocated towards the
center of PA-3. This would provide additional space away from Brannigan Street .
▪ PA-4
o Access remains the same.
Bicycles and Pedestrians
The public roadways surrounding the project site would be as described in the previous project
and completed in accordance with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, including the
incorporation of Class II bike lanes along Dublin Boulevard and westbound on Central Parkway.
Public Transit
The revised project retains the same public transit improvements as described in the previou s
project.
Bus stops suitable for use by Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LA VTA) would be
constructed on the revised project frontage streets of Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive, Central
Parkway and Dublin Boulevard.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 8
1/16/20
Grading
The revised project would be substantially consistent with the assumptions and grading
approach of the previous project.
The revised project would require an estimated net import of approximately 111,200 cubic
yards of soil. Excess fill would be utilized on‐site to minimize the import of soils. PA‐1 would
have the majority of imported soils, PA‐2 and PA-4 would generate some soils export, and PA‐3
would require some minor import of soils. The imported soils would originate from available
borrow sites, preferably within the Tri‐Valley area.
Infrastructure
Water
The revised project would connect to the existing underground potable and non‐potable
recycled Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) water lines in a manner similar to the
previous project.
The project site is located within the boundaries of the DSRSD, which serves the City of Dublin
with potable water and non‐potable recycled water. The revised project would connect to
existing underground potable and non‐potable recycled DSRSD water lines located within the
right‐of‐way of the adjacent roadways. Multiple connections would be provided for the
purposes of achieving a “looped system.” Potable water would be used for domestic use, while
non‐potable recycled/reclaimed water would be used primarily for landscape irrigation.
Wastewater
The revised project would connect to the existing underground sewer lines in a manner similar
to the previous project.
The project site is located within the boundaries of DSRSD, which serves the City of Dublin with
potable water. The previous project assumed connection to existing underground DSRSD sewer
lines located within the right‐of‐way of the adjacent roadways. Multiple laterals would connect
the revised project to the existing sewer system.
Stormwater Management
Stormwater management for the project site would be substantially similar to the previous
project.
The previous project assumed an on‐site storm drainage system that would collect and convey
runoff and ultimately discharge it to the City of Dublin’s municipal storm drainage system.
Drainage for the revised project was designed to maintain the existing drainage patterns to the
extent feasible. This would be done by reducing the post development runoff to the
predevelopment condition, consistent with Municipal Regional Permit requirements as defined
by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 9
1/16/20
Dry Utilities
The revised project assumes these same services and improvements as compared to the
previous project.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company would serve the project site with electricity and natural gas.
Additionally, portions of buildings in the revised project would include the use of solar
power/photovoltaics. Similar to the previous project, the revised project would incorporate
electric vehicle (EV) charging stations for the commercial area and the apartments.
Project Phasing
Project construction activities would include site preparation, grading, paving, building
construction, and architectural coating. As shown Figure 3: Project Phasing, the revised project
is anticipated to be completed in two phases over a construction period of approximately four
years, although it may be developed over a longer period of time depending on market
conditions. The first phase would include the northern portion of PA‐1 and all of PA-2. Phase 2
includes the southern portion of PA‐1, and PA3 and PA‐4.
Project Approvals
Discretionary approvals and permits and authorizations required by the City of Dublin for
implementation of the revised project includes the following:
▪ EIR Certification
▪ General Plan Amendment
▪ Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
▪ Planned Development Rezone (Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans)
▪ Site Development Review
▪ Vesting Tentative Map
▪ Street Vacation (Northside Drive)
▪ Development Agreement
▪ Master Sign Program/Site Development Review
Subsequent ministerial actions would be required for the implementation of the revised project
including issuance of building permits, grading, encroachment and site improvements.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 10
1/16/20
Environmental Analysis
The discussion below analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the revised project per
the criteria as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Based on this analysis, the City
has determined that no event has occurred that requires recirculation of the Final EIR.
Aesthetics
The Final EIR concluded that impacts to a scenic vista, state scenic highway, and visual character
would be less than significant. Impacts from new light and glare were determined to be
potentially significant because implementation of the previous project would include additional
sources of commercial and residential indoor lighting, outdoor/security lighting, parking area
lighting, and illuminated signage to a presently vacant site. These impacts were reduced to a
less-than-significant level by implementation of MM AES-4.1: Exterior Lighting Control.
The revised project would contain similar land uses to the previous project. The revised would
project shift the buildings with the largest mass (movie theater and apartment building) from
PA-2 to PA-1 where similarly large-scale buildings were anticipated in the previous project. The
urban form would generally be the same but at a lower density. As shown in Figure 4: Project
Renderings, impacts to visual character would be consistent with existing uses and
development patterns in the project area.
Similarly, while a reduced density, the revised project would still require exterior lighting that
would generally be similar to the previous project. Mitigation measures in the Final EIR would
continue to apply.
With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there
would be no new or substantially more severe aesthetic significant impacts for the revised
project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no
other CEQA standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is
required.
Air Quality
The Final EIR found that development of the project site would potentially conflict with the
2017 Clean Air Plan. Construction and operational air quality emissions generated by the
previous project were determined to exceed Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) emissions thresholds despite implementation of mitigation measures. To reduce
impacts to air quality emissions to less than significant, the previous project identified the
following mitigation measures: MM AQ-2.1: BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures,
MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction Equipment, MM AQ-2.3: Architectural
Coating, and MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces. The Final EIR found no impacts to
objectionable odors because BAAQMD enforces permit and nuisance rules to control odorous
emissions from stationary sources.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 11
1/16/20
The revised project is anticipated to be completed in two phases over a construction period of
approximately four years. The previous project had anticipated construction to be completed in
two phases over five years.
Similar to the previous project, the resulting total cut and fill of soils for the revised project is
estimated to be approximately 111,200 cubic yards. Although the revised project proposes a
reduction in residential units and commercial square footage, similar construction equipment
and number of trips would still be required for the construction. Daily construction emissions
would still remain below their respective thresholds except for ROG and NOX due to fact that
construction activities in multiple Planning Areas would occur, similar to previously proposed .
Mitigation measures in the Final EIR would continue to apply including MM AQ-2.1: BAAQMD
Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction
Equipment, MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating, and MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces.
With adherence to these mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there
would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to air quality for the revised
project beyond what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no other CEQA
standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required.
Biological Resources
The Final EIR determined that development of the project site would have the potential to
impact special-status plant species, special-status wildlife species, nesting birds and wetlands.
These impacts were reduced to a less-than-significant level by implementation of MM BIO-1.1:
Special-Status Plants Avoidance and Mitigation, MM BIO-1.2: Burrowing Owl Avoidance and
Exclusion Measures, MM BIO-1.3: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures, and MM BIO- 3.1 Wetland
Mitigation Plan.
The Final EIR determined that impacts to natural communities or riparian habitats, wildlife
movement, and tree preservation to be less than significant.
Because the revised project would disturb the entire project site, similar to the previous
project, there would not be any greater impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status
species than previously analyzed in the Final EIR. Mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR
would continue to apply.
With adherence to these required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements,
there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to candidate, sensitive,
or special status species for the revised project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the
Final EIR for the previous project and no other CEQA standards for recirculation are met.
Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 12
1/16/20
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
The Final EIR determined that development of the project site would have no impact to known
historical or archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources.
The Final EIR determined that development of the project site would have the potential to
impact previously unknown historic and paleontological resources. These impacts were reduced
to a less-than-significant level by implementation of MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological
Discovery During Construction, and MM CR-2.1: Paleontological Resource Monitoring. Impacts
to the inadvertent discovery of human remains were found to be less than significant with the
implementation of existing regulations.
Because the revised project would be located within the same project site as the previous
project, there would be no greater impacts to cultural resources than previously analyzed.
Mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR would continue to apply.
With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there
would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to cultural resources for the
revised project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous
project and no other CEQA standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of
the EIR is required.
Geology and Soils
The Final EIR determined that the project site would have no impact in regards to earthquake-
related ground rupture, landslide susceptibility, on -site wastewater disposal system, and
extraction of mineral resources.
The Final EIR determined that development of the project site would have the potential to be
exposed to strong ground shaking hazards, ground failure, including liquefaction. These impacts
were reduced to a less-than-significant level by implementation of MM GEO-1.1: Implement
Preliminary Geotechnical Report Recommendations and compliance with the most current
California Building Code (CBC ) and General Plan policies.
The revised project would still be required to implement the geotechnical recommendations
and be compliant with the most current CBC requirements as described in the Final EIR.
With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there
would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to seismic hazards for the
revised project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous
project and no other CEQA standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of
the EIR is required.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 13
1/16/20
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Final EIR determined that the previous project would include direct and indirect GHG
emissions. Direct operational-related GHG emissions include emissions from area and mobile
sources, while indirect emissions are from energy consumption, water demand, and solid
waste. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.
As determined in the Final EIR, the previous project was determined to be consistent with the
overall goals of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Plan Bay Area 2040 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy in concentrating new development in
locations where there is existing infrastructure. The previous project’s design features were
determined to be consistent with the GHG reduction planning efforts and housin g performance
targets outlined in Plan Bay Area 2040 and the City’s Climate Action Plan. The revised project
would be substantially consistent with these design features.
The revised project would be completed in two phases over a construction period of
approximately four years, one year less than previously proposed. The previous project would
utilize an average of 125 workers a year and would generate approximately 458 daily trips,
based on 3.05 daily trips per worker, with a 20 percent increase to account for material
deliveries, and other trips not directly related to site workers. The revised project would be
substantially consistent with these assumptions.
The revised project would result in less indirect emissions than previously analyzed because
there would be a reduced demand from energy consumption, water demand, and solid waste
due to the reduction in the number of housing units and less commercial square footage . The
revised project would result in less direct operational-related GHG emissions than previously
analyzed because there would be less residential units, thus resulting in less net project trips.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts to GHG emissions for the revised project beyond what was
analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no other CEQA standards for
recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Final EIR determined that the previous project would have no impact in regard to emitting
hazardous emissions within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, conflict with an
emergency response plan, or be located on a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
It also determined that the previous project would have the potential to result in the exposure
of hazardous materials into the environment due to ground disturbance. These impacts were
reduced to a less-than-significant level by implementation of MM HAZ-1.1 Disposal of
Deleterious Materials. This mitigation measure would continue to apply.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 14
1/16/20
In regard to the previous project activities involving the use, transport, and disposal of
hazardous materials, impacts were found to be less than significant due to compliance with
regulatory requirements.
The revised project would involve the same types of land uses. Future commercial uses would
use, handle and store hazardous materials and waste that would be regulated by the Alameda
County Department of Environmental Health and provide applicable documentation
demonstrating operational compliance.
For the residential portion of the revised project, there would still be a less than significant
impact to the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials since residential development
does not use, store or transport significant quantities of hazardous materials.
With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there
would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts for the revised project
beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no other
CEQA standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The Final EIR determined that the previous project would not be subject to inundation by
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow based on the location of the project site. The revised project is
located on the same project site and, therefore, would also not be subject to inundation by
seiche, tsunami or mudflow.
The Final EIR identified development by the previous project would not result in an increase in
stormwater runoff due to an increase in impervious surfaces and therefore impacts were
determined to be less than significant. Impacts to water quality were determined to be less
than significant because the previous project would be required to meet the water quality
requirements required by the Construction General Permit and MRP Provision C.3
Requirements. Impacts to placement of structures within a 100-year flood hazard area were
determined to be less than significant because structures within PA-1 would be elevated above
the 100-year flood elevation level. In addition, as part of the design process, the revised project
applicant would seek a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from FEMA. The raised
elevations within PA-1 and the associated CLOMR and LOMR process would reduce impacts to a
less-than-significant level. The revised project would be subject to these same requirements.
The previous project assumed on‐site storm drainage system would be installed to collect and
convey runoff and ultimately discharge to the City of Dublin’s municipal storm drainage system.
Similar to the previous project, drainage on the project site has been designed in the revised
project to maintain the existing watershed drainage pattern to the extent feasible. This would
be done by reducing the post development runoff for PA-1 and PA-4 to the predevelopment
condition prior to discharge into the City of Dublin’s municipal storm drainage system,
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 15
1/16/20
consistent with Municipal Regional Permit requirements as defined by the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board and in a manner similar to that proposed by the previous
project. Runoff from PA-2 and PA-3 would be conveyed by the municipal storm drainage system
to the existing downstream water quality/detention pond constructed as part of the Dublin
Ranch Drainage Master Plan improvements, also in a manner similar to that proposed by the
previous project.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts to hydrology and water quality for the revised project beyond
what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no other CEQA
standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required.
Land Use and Planning
The Final EIR concluded that development of the previous project would not physically divide
an established community, nor would it conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or
Natural Community Conservation Plan.
The previous project included a General Plan Amendment that would re-designate the project
site from six to four land use designations. The Final EIR determined that the previous project
would not conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation.
As shown in Figure 1: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations, the revised project would
redistribute and simplify the six existing General Plan land use desig nations to three land uses,
organized into four PAs. The revised project would reduce the number of residential units by
114 units and proposes lower density product types. The revised project would locate
commercial uses south of Dublin Boulevard to consolidate vehicle trips and pedestrian
circulation. Commercial uses would be reduced by 214,500 square feet compared to the
previous project. See Table 1: At Dublin – Revised Project Land Use Summary. Given the revised
project would reduce the number of residential uses and lower the intensity of uses, impacts to
land uses would be less than previously analyzed.
With City Council approval of the revised project and certification of the EIR, the revised project
would be consistent with applicable land use plan, policy, and regulations. There would be no
new or substantially more severe significant impacts to environmental protection policies in the
General Plan for the revised project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for
the previous project and no other CEQA standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no
recirculation of the EIR is required.
Noise
The Final EIR found worst-case construction noise levels at the closest off-site sensitive
receptors for the previous project could potentially reach 72.8 dBA Leq. Worst-case
construction noise levels at the closest occupied on-site receptors could potentially reach 79.7
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 16
1/16/20
dBA. These impacts were reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of MM
N-1.1: Construction Noise Reduction.
The Final EIR determined development from the previous project would create new sources of
noise in the project vicinity. The increase of noise level from traffic noise, mechanical
equipment, and parking areas were found not to be significant. The increase in noise from slow
moving trucks and on-site mobile sources were found to be potentially significant. These
impacts were reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of MM N-3.1: Noise
Attenuation.
Impacts to groundborne vibration during construction and operation activities from the
previous project were found to be below the significance threshold of 0.20 inch/second peak
particle velocity. Implementation of the construction noise best management practices would
ensure that construction noise would not result in annoyance or disturbance or injury or
endangerment of the health, repose, peace or safety of any rea sonable person of normal
sensitivity residing in the revised project vicinity.
The revised project is anticipated to be completed in two phases over a construction period of
approximately four years. Although the revised project proposes a reduction in residential units
and a reduction in commercial square footage, similar construction equipment and number of
construction trips would be required. Thus, impacts in regard to noise and groundborne
vibration from construction and operation activities would be similar. Mitigation measures
described in the Final EIR would continue to apply.
With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there
would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to noise for the revised
project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no
other CEQA standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is
required.
Population and Housing
The Final EIR determined development of the project site would not displace existing housing
or people because the project site is undeveloped.
The Final EIR identified population growth from the previous project would be less than
significant. While the previous project would increase the population projections for the City,
the previous project still represents a small fraction of the planned buildout for t he Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan overall. In addition, the previous project would be consistent with the
nature of surrounding development and would be within the estimate of population growth
estimated by Department of Finance and the City’s Housing Element.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 17
1/16/20
Because the revised project is located within the same project site and proposes a reduction of
residential units, impacts to population growth would be less than previously analyzed in the
Final EIR.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts to population growth and housing for the revised project
beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no other
CEQA standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required.
Public Services
The Final EIR determined that impacts to fire protection and emergency medical services, police
services, schools, and recreation facilities to be less than significant.
The revised project would utilize the same services and improvements as the previous project.
Given the revised project proposes a reduction of residential units and a reduction in
commercial square footage, there would be less demand on these public facilities and services
than previously analyzed in the Final EIR.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts to public services for the revised project beyond what was
analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no other CEQA standards for
recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required.
Transportation/Traffic
The Final EIR determined that the previous project would have significant impacts in regard to
transportation and circulation. Some of these impacts were reduced to a less than significant
level by implementation of the following mitigation measures:
▪ MM TR-1.1 Prohibited Turn Movement Design Features for the New Project Intersection
on Dublin Boulevard
▪ MM TR-3.1 Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway
▪ MM TR-3.2 Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway
▪ MM TR-3.3 Existing + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard
▪ MM TR-3.5 Existing + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / The Shops / Project
Driveway
▪ MM TR-6.2 Near-term + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street
▪ MM TR-6.3 Near-term + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / The Shops /
Project Driveway
▪ MM TR-8.1 Cumulative + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard
▪ MM TR-8.2 Cumulative + Project Improvements to Brannigan Street / Dublin Boulevard
▪ MM TR-8.3 Cumulative + Project Improvements to Fallon Road / Dublin Boulevard
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 18
1/16/20
▪ MM TR-8.4 Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Keegan Street
▪ MM TR-8.5 Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Lockhart Street
▪ MM TR-9.1 Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Grafton Street
However, even with the implementation of the following mitigation measures, some impacts
would remain significant and unavoidable as follows:
▪ Impact TR-2: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Existing + Project
condition that exceed established LOS standards (Class I).
o MM TR-2.1 Existing + Project Improvements to El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive /
Jack London Boulevard (LTS)
o MM TR-2.2 Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
▪ Impact TR-3: Cause intersection queues to operate below acceptable levels under
Existing + Project conditions (Class I).
o MM TR-3.4 Existing + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps
▪ Impact TR-4: Increase vehicle densities along study freeway segments and ramps in the
Existing + Project condition that exceed established LOS standards (Class I).
o MM TR-4.1 Existing + Project Freeway Segment Improvements
o MM TR-4.2 Existing + Project Ramp Metering Improvements
▪ Impact TR-5: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Near-Term + Project
condition that exceed established LOS standards (Class I and II).
o MM TR-5.1 Near-Term + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las Positas
Boulevard
▪ Impact TR-6: Cause intersection queues to operate below acceptable levels under Near-
Term + Project conditions (Class I and II).
o MM TR-6.1 Near-Term + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard
▪ Impact TR-7: Increase vehicle densities along study freeway segments and ramps in the
Near-Term + Project conditions that exceed established LOS standards (Class I Impact).
o MM TR-7.1 Near-Term + Project Ramp Metering Improvements
▪ Impact TR-8: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Cumulative + Project
conditions that exceed established LOS standards (Class I and II).
o MM TR-8.6 Cumulative + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las Positas
Boulevard
Trip Generation
For trip generation purposes, the revised project was assumed to include the land uses and
sizes as shown in Table 2: New Project Weekday Trip Generation. The 240,000 square feet of
commercial uses from Table 1: At Dublin – Revised Project Land Use Summary is divided into
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 19
1/16/20
75,000 square feet of hotel and 165,000 square feet of retail/mixed-use since each land use has
its own trip generation rate. The 40,000-square -foot medical office building could still be used
as a retail use and, therefore, is included within the remaining 165,000 square feet of
retail/mixed-use since it has a higher trip generation rate than a medical office building. This
would result in a higher number of vehicle trips and a more conservative analysis.
The revised project would result in less vehicle trips as compared to the previous project. As
shown in Table 2: New Project Weekday Trip Generation, the revised project would generate
12,109 net new daily trips, with 565 net new trips (252 in and 313 out) occurring during the AM
peak hour and 1,039 net new trips (547 in and 492 out) occurring during the PM peak hour. As
shown in Table 3: New Project Saturday Trip Generation, the revised project would generate
15,638 net new Saturday daily trips, with 1,263 net new trips (671 in and 592 out) occurring
during the peak hour.
Table 4: Weekday Trip Generation Comparison 2018 vs 2019 shows a trip generation
comparison between the previous project and the revised project; including the difference in
project trips for the uses north and south of Dublin Boulevard.
The revised project is estimated to generate 183 fewer AM peak hour trips, 506 fewer PM peak
hour trips, and 568 fewer Saturday peak hour trips. However, the revised project is estimated
to generate 90 more AM and 59 more Saturday peak hour trips for PA-1, south of Dublin
Boulevard. This is due to the added residential units, which have a higher trip generation than
retail uses, which have been reduced for PA-1, as compared to the previous project.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 20
1/16/20
Table 2: New Project Weekday Trip Generation
Land Use
ITE
Land
Use
Code Size Unit
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Trips In Out Total In Out Total
Revised Project
Residential Single-Family
Detached 1 210 130 DU 1,364 26 76 102 83 49 132
Residential Apartments 2 220 240 DU 1,774 25 85 110 81 48 129
Senior Housing Detached 3 251 109 DU 606 15 29 44 31 20 51
Senior Housing Attached 4 252 87 DU 324 6 11 17 13 10 23
Hotel 5 310 155 Rooms 1,322 42 30 72 46 44 90
Mixed-Use 6 820 165 1,000 sf. 8,452 145 89 234 378 409 787
Internal Capture
Trip Reduction (Day: 3.7%,
AM: 2.4%, PM: 5%) 7 -512 -7 -7 -14 -30 -30 -60
Pass-By
Retail Only Trip Reduction
(PM: 15% after IC) -1,221 -55 -58 -113
Net New Project Trips 12,109 252 313 565 547 492 1,039
Notes:
1. ITE Code 210; Based on ITE equation. AM: Y=0.71*X+4.8; PM: LN(Y)=0.96*LN(X)+0.2; DAILY: LN(Y)=0.92*LN(X)+2.71
2. ITE Code 220; Based on ITE equation. AM: LN(Y)=0.95*LN(X)-0.51; PM: LN(Y)=0.89*LN(X)-0.2; DAILY: Y=7.56*X-40.86
3. ITE Code 251; Based on ITE equation. AM: LN(Y)=0.76*LN(X)+0.21; PM: LN(Y)=0.78*LN(X)+0.28; DAILY: LN(Y)=0.88*LN(X)+2.28
4. ITE Code 252; Based on ITE equation. AM: Y=0.2*X-0.18; PM: Y=0.24*X+2.26; DAILY: Y=4.02*X-25.37
5. ITE Code 310; Based on ITE equation. AM: Y=0.5*X-5.34; PM: Y=0.75*X-26.02; DAILY: Y=11.29*X-426.97
6. ITE Code 820; Based on ITE equation. AM: Y=0.5*X+151.78; PM: LN(Y)=0.74*LN(X)+2.89; DAILY: LN(Y)=0.68*LN(X)+5.57
7. Weekday daily internal capture is not available from ITE. AM and PM peak internal capture rates averaged to estimate the daily internal
capture rate.
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 10th Edition, 2017; Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2018
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 21
1/16/20
Table 3: New Project Saturday Trip Generation
Land Use ITE Land
Use Code Size Unit Daily Saturday Peak Hour
Trips In Out Total
Proposed Project
Residential Single-Family Detached 1 210 130 DU 1,284 79 67 146
Residential Apartments 2 220 240 DU 2,840 122 104 226
Senior Housing Detached 3 251 109 DU 298 12 13 25
Senior Housing Attached 4 252 87 DU 286 18 11 29
Hotel 5 310 155 Rooms 1,196 62 49 111
Mixed-Use 6 820 165 1,000 sf. 12,158 478 441 919
Internal Capture
Trip Reduction (Day: 5%, SAT: 5%) 7 -668 -30 -30 -60
Pass-By
Retail Only Trip Reduction (15% after IC) -1,756 -70 -63 -133
Net New Project Trips 15,638 671 592 1,263
Notes:
1. ITE Code 210; Based on ITE equation. SAT Peak: Y=0.84*X+17.99; DAILY: LN(Y)=0.94*LN(X)+2.56
2. ITE Code 220; Based on ITE equation. SAT Peak: Y=1.08*X-33.24; DAILY: Y=14.01*X-521.69
3. ITE Code 251; Based on average rate. SAT Peak: Y=0.23*X; DAILY: Y=2.73*X
4. ITE Code 252; Based on ITE equation. SAT Peak: Y=0.35*X-1.67; DAILY: Y=3.97*X-60.09
5. ITE Code 310; Based on ITE equation. SAT Peak: Y=0.69*X+4.32; DAILY: Y=9.62*X-294.56
6. ITE Code 820; Based on ITE equation. SAT Peak: LN(Y)=0.79*LN(X)+2.79; DAILY: LN(Y)=0.62*LN(X)+6.24
7. Saturday daily internal capture is not available from ITE. Saturday peak internal capture rate estimate used for the Saturday daily internal
capture rate.
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 10th Edition, 2017; Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2018
Table 4: Weekday Trip Generation Comparison 2018 vs 2019
Land Use
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour SAT Peak
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
North of Dublin Boulevard
Previous Project (2018) 132 303 435 398 295 693 434 377 811
Revised Project (2019) 47 115 162 116 74 190 98 86 184
Difference -85 -188 -273 -282 -221 -503 -336 -291 -627
South of Dublin Boulevard
Previous Project (2018) 193 120 313 411 441 852 542 478 1,020
Revised Project (2019) 205 198 403 431 418 849 573 506 1,079
Difference +12 +78 +90 +20 -23 -3 +31 +28 +59
Project Total
Previous Project (2018) 325 423 748 809 736 1545 976 855 1,831
Revised Project (2019) 252 313 565 547 492 1039 671 592 1,263
Difference -73 -110 -183 -262 -244 -506 -305 -263 -568
Note: Increases in project trips with the revised project are shown in blue.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 22
1/16/20
Level of Service and Queuing Analysis
The overall trip generation for the revised project is estimated to be less than the previous
project trip generation. Therefore, the revised project would generate fewer project trips in the
study area than previously analyzed in the Final EIR. However, there is a shift in the land uses
within the Planning Areas. As shown in Table 4: Weekday Trip Generation Comparison 2018 vs
2019, south of Dublin Boulevard is estimated to have an increase in vehicle trips in the weekday
AM peak hour and the Saturday peak hour. Therefore, additional traffic analysis was conducted
at the study intersections adjacent to the project site (e.g., Brannigan Street, Dublin Boulevard,
and Tassajara Road) that may have a significant impact due to the shift in land uses between
the Project Planning Areas. The Existing Plus Project, Near-term (2025) Plus Project, and Long-
term (2040) Plus Project scenarios were reevaluated at study intersections adjacent to the
project site along Brannigan Street, Dublin Boulevard, and Tassajara Road.
Existing Plus Project
The intersection level of service (LOS) and queuing were compared between the previous
Existing Plus Project scenario and the revised Existing Plus Project scenario. As shown in Table
5: Existing Plus Project Weekday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 and Table 6: Existing Plus
Project Saturday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019, each study intersection operates acceptably in
the Existing plus Project scenario and the majority of the intersections have a lo wer delay as
compared to the previous project.
Table 5: Existing Plus Project Weekday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019
Table 6: Existing Plus Project Saturday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019
Traffic queuing and turning movements at each study intersection were also analyzed for the
Existing Plus Project scenario. Queue lengths for the revised project would be less than
LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Δ LOS Delay Δ
12 Tassajara Rd / Central Pkwy D C 22.5 B 17.4 C 22.3 -0.2 B 17.7 0.3
13 Tassajara Rd / The Shops D B 13.1 B 17.4 B 10.1 -3.0 B 15.9 -1.5
14 Tassajara Rd / Dublin Blvd D D 39.0 D 47.0 D 38.5 -0.5 D 43.5 -3.5
15 Tassajara Rd / Dublin Corporate Way D A 7.0 C 21.9 A 7.0 0.0 C 22.2 0.3
21 Central Expy / Brannigan St D C 28.4 B 18.0 C 27.8 -0.6 B 17.4 -0.6
22 Finnian Way / Brannigan St D A 8.2 A 9.3 A 8.1 -0.1 A 8.8 -0.5
23 Dublin Blvd / Brannigan St D B 16.5 B 16.7 B 16.1 -0.4 B 19.6 2.9
35 Project Dwy #9 / Dublin Blvd D B 13.5 C 30.2 B 10.9 -2.6 B 16.2 -14.0
IntersectionInt #AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
2019 Errata
Existing + Project
Criteria AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
2018 Draft EIR
LOS Delay LOS Delay Δ
13 Tassajara Rd / The Shops D C 21.3 B 18.1 -3.2
14 Tassajara Rd / Dublin Blvd D D 44.0 D 41.5 -2.5
35 Project Dwy #9 / Dublin Blvd D D 40.6 B 17.9 -22.7
Int #Intersection Criteria
Existing + Project
2018 Draft EIR 2019 Errata
SAT Peak Hour SAT Peak Hour
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 23
1/16/20
previously analyzed, except for the northbound left turn movement at the intersection of
Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard in the AM and PM pea k hours. However, the queue for
this movement is contained within the available storage pocket and , therefore, impacts would
remain less than significant.
For the Existing Plus Project scenario, the revised project would not result in any new LOS or
queuing impacts.
Near-term (2025) Plus Project
The intersection LOS and queuing were compared for the previous Near-term (2025) Plus
Project scenario and the revised Near-term (2025) Plus Project scenario. As shown in Table 7:
Near-term (2025) Plus Project Weekday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 and Table 8: Near-term
(2025) Plus Project Saturday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019, each study intersection operates at
a lower delay or stays below the LOS D threshold in the Near-term (2025) Plus Project scenario.
The majority of the intersections have a lower delay for the revised project as compared to the
previous project. The intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard operates at a
deficient LOS F in the PM peak hour, but the intersection op erates better for the revised project
due to the lower trip generation of the revised project. During the Saturday peak hour, the
intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard and the signalized intersection on Dublin
Boulevard between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street have a lower delay for the revised
project as compared to the previous project. Since there are no intersections that would
operate unacceptably or increase delay, there would be no new significant impacts.
Table 7: Near-term (2025) Plus Project Weekday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019
Note: Locations shown in bold reflect a deficient level of service.
LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Δ LOS Delay Δ
12 Tassajara Rd / Central Pkwy D C 23.5 B 18.5 C 23.5 0.0 B 18.9 0.4
13 Tassajara Rd / The Shops D B 12.7 B 19.3 B 10.1 -2.6 B 17.3 -2.0
14 Tassajara Rd / Dublin Blvd D D 52.0 F 97.4 D 52.4 0.4 F 93.9 -3.5
15 Tassajara Rd / Dublin Corporate Way D A 6.2 C 23.3 A 6.2 0.0 C 23.7 0.4
21 Central Expy / Brannigan St D C 29.6 B 19.1 C 28.8 -0.8 B 18.5 -0.6
22 Finnian Way / Brannigan St D A 8.4 B 19.1 A 8.2 -0.2 A 8.8 -10.3
23 Dublin Blvd / Brannigan St D B 12.6 B 19.1 B 15.5 2.9 C 24.0 4.9
35 Project Dwy #9 / Dublin Blvd D C 25.6 C 26.4 B 10.7 -14.9 B 16.5 -9.9
Int #Intersection Criteria
Near-term (2025) + Project
2018 Draft EIR 2019 Errata
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 24
1/16/20
Table 8: Near-term (2025) Plus Project Saturday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019
Note: Locations shown in bold reflect a deficient level of service.
The queuing was also reviewed for the Near-term (2025) Plus Project scenario. For each turning
movement at each of the study intersections reviewed, the Near-term (2025) plus Project
queue lengths were less than previously analyzed, except for the northbound left turn
movement at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard in the AM and PM peak
hours.
This increase in queue length is due to a reassignment of project traffic due to the change in
land uses and concentration of high-density land uses in PA-1. This results in an increase in the
number of outbound AM peak hour trips for PA-1, resulting in more trips at some intersections
than analyzed in the previous project. For example, because there is a higher concentration of
commercial uses on the west end of PA-1, this increases the likelihood of vehicles using the
Tassajara Road access, as opposed to the Dublin Boulevard or Brannigan Street access points.
For this scenario, the northbound queue would extend past the turn pocket, as was identified in
Impact TR-6. The revised project would lengthen this queue by 11 feet in the AM peak hour and
two feet in the PM peak hour. However, since this was previously identified as a significant and
unavoidable impact, the revised project would not result in a new significant impact.
For the Near-term (2025) Plus Project scenario, the revised project would not result in any new
LOS or queuing significant impacts.
Long-term (2040) Plus Project
The intersection LOS and queuing were compared between the previous Long-term (2040) Plus
Project scenario and the revised Long-term (2040) plus Project scenario. As shown in Table 9:
Long-term (2040) Plus Project Weekday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 and Table 10: Long-term
(2040) Plus Project Saturday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019, each study intersection operates at
a lower delay or stays below the LOS D threshold in the Long-term (2040) Plus Project scenario.
The majority of the intersections have a lower delay as compared to the previous project. Since
there are no intersections that would operate unacceptably or increase delay, there would be
no new significant impacts.
LOS Delay LOS Delay Δ
13 Tassajara Rd / The Shops D C 29.5 C 28.5 -1.0
14 Tassajara Rd / Dublin Blvd D F 119.4 F 102.7 -16.7
35 Project Dwy #9 / Dublin Blvd D E 59.2 B 17.6 -41.6
Int #Intersection Criteria
Near-term (2025) + Project
2018 Draft EIR 2019 Errata
SAT Peak Hour SAT Peak Hour
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 25
1/16/20
Table 9: Long-term (2040) Plus Project Weekday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019
Note: Locations shown in bold reflect a deficient level of service.
Table 10: Long-term (2040) Plus Project Saturday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019
Note: Locations shown in bold reflect a deficient level of service.
The intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard operates at a deficient LOS F in the AM
and PM peak hours, but the intersection operates better with the revised project than with the
previous project due to the lower trip generation.
The intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Brannigan Street operates at a deficient LOS F in the
PM peak hour, but the intersection operates better with the revised project t han with the
previous project due to the lower cycle length needed at this intersection.
During the Saturday peak hour, the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard and
the signalized intersection on Dublin Boulevard between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street
would have a lower delay with the revised project as compared to the previous project.
The queuing was also reviewed for the Long-term (2040) Plus Project scenario. For each turning
movement at each of the study intersections reviewed, the Long-term (2040) plus Project
queue lengths with the revised project would be less than previously analyzed, except for the
northbound left turn movement at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard in
the AM and PM peak hours. For this scenario, the northbound queue did extend past the turn
pocket, and was identified in Impact TR-9. The revised project would lengthen this queue by 12
feet in the AM peak hour and six feet in the PM peak hour. However, since this was previously
identified as a significant and unavoidable impact, the revised project would not result in a new
significant impact.
LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Δ LOS Delay Δ
12 Tassajara Rd / Central Pkwy D C 22.6 C 21.7 C 22.9 0.3 C 23.0 1.3
13 Tassajara Rd / The Shops D B 12.2 B 19.6 B 10.5 -1.7 B 16.8 -2.8
14 Tassajara Rd / Dublin Blvd D F 88.8 F 183.6 F 88.0 -0.8 F 175.6 -8.0
15 Tassajara Rd / Dublin Corporate Way D A 6.2 B 18.3 A 6.2 0.0 B 18.5 0.2
21 Central Expy / Brannigan St D C 27.8 C 23.3 C 27.0 -0.8 C 22.1 -1.2
22 Finnian Way / Brannigan St D A 8.4 B 10.3 A 8.3 -0.1 A 9.6 -0.7
23 Dublin Blvd / Brannigan St D B 16.8 F 104.9 C 22.2 5.4 F 90.0 -14.9
35 Project Dwy #9 / Dublin Blvd D A 9.5 D 46.8 B 11.9 2.4 C 21.1 -25.7
Int #Intersection Criteria
Long-term (2040) + Project
2018 Draft EIR 2019 Errata
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
LOS Delay LOS Delay Δ
13 Tassajara Rd / The Shops D C 24.6 C 20.8 -3.8
14 Tassajara Rd / Dublin Blvd D F 156.1 F 148.7 -7.4
35 Project Dwy #9 / Dublin Blvd D E 78.6 C 20.2 -58.4
Int #Intersection Criteria
Long-term (2040) + Project
2018 Draft EIR 2019 Errata
SAT Peak Hour SAT Peak Hour
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 26
1/16/20
For the Long-term (2040) plus Project Plus Project scenario, the revised project would not result
in any new LOS or queuing impacts.
Transportation Conclusions
The revised project would not result in worsening below the LOS D criteria and queuing
conditions compared to the previous project, except for the northbound left turn queue at the
intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard in the Near-term (2025) Plus Project
scenarios and the Long-term (2040) Plus Project scenarios. However, the revised project
increases the queue length by a maximum of 12 feet (less than one vehicle length) as compared
to the previous project. This queuing impact was previously identified as a significant and
unavoidable impact in the EIR and, therefore, is not a new or substantially more severe
significant impact.
The revised project would still be required to implement the transportation mitigation
measures identified in the EIR. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable
regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts to transportation for the revised project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in
the Final EIR for the previous project and no other CEQA standards for recirculation are met .
Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required.
Utilities and Service Systems
The Final EIR determined that impacts to water supplies or treatment facilities, wastewater
treatment facilities, stormwater drainage facilities, and landfills, would be less than significant.
Similar to the previous project, the revised project would also connect to the existing
underground potable and non-potable recycled DSRSD water lines and sewer lines located
within the right-of-way of the adjacent roadways. The Water Supply Assessment (WSA)
prepared by DSRSD concluded in a potable water (interior) demand of 0.20 MGD. Applying the
same methodology, the revised project is estimated to have an interior potable water demand
of 126,825 gallons per day (gpd), which would be a reduction of 73,175 gpd compared to the
previous project.
Per Technical Memorandum – Supplemental Water Supply Assessment and Water and Sewer
System Capacity Analysis for the Updated Proposed AT Dublin Development Project prepared by
West Yost Associates (January 2020), review of the revised project showed a slight decrease in
service demands due to a reduction in residential units and less intense commercial uses. The
design and planning criteria set by DSRSD’s 2016 Water System Master Plan and 2019
Collection System Master Plan set the capacity of the potable and recycled water, and
wastewater collection system. The slight decrease in service demands would not alter the sizes
of the potable and recycled storage and pumping facilities. However, the project engineer
would need to modify the potable water, recycled water, and collection system pipeline
alignments so that they are within approved street alignments and provi de service demands.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 27
1/16/20
With adherence to applicable regulations, there would be no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts to water supplies or treatment facilities, wastewater treatment facilities,
stormwater drainage facilities, and landfills for the revised project beyond what was analyzed
and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no other CEQA standards for
recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required.
Energy Conservation
The Final EIR determined that project construction activities would not substantially affect
existing energy or fuel supplies or resources based on the previous project’s low construction
fuel use proportional to State and Alameda County consumption.
The Final EIR determined that operation of uses under the previous project would not
substantially affect existing energy or fuel supplies or resources. The project would comply with
applicable energy standards and new capacity would not be required. Impacts were determined
to be less than significant.
Given the revised project proposes a reduction in residential units and commercial uses, there
would be a reduced demand to energy consumption for construction and operation than
previously analyzed in the Final EIR. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements,
there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to energy conservation
for the revised project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous
project and no other CEQA standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of
the EIR is required.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
Not to scale
At Dublin - Revised
Errata
Figure 1: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations
Source: Shea Properties, 2019
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
Not to scaleAt Dublin - RevisedErrataSource: Shea ProperƟ es, 2019Figure 2: Conceptual Site Plan7.1.bPacket Pg. 132Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
Not to scale
At Dublin - Revised
Errata
Source: Shea Properties, 2019
Figure 3: Phasing Plan
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
At Dublin - Revised
Errata
Source: Shea Properties, 2019
Figure 4a: Project Renderings - Commercial
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
Source: Shea Properties, 2019
Figure 4b: Project Renderings - Commercial Plazas
At Dublin - RevisedErrata
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
At Dublin - Revised
Errata
Source: Shea Properties, 2019
Figure 4c: Project Renderings - Multifamily
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
Source: Shea Properties, 2019
Figure 4d: Project Renderings - Single-Family Residential
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)
At Dublin - RevisedErrataSource: Shea ProperƟ es, 2019Figure 4e: Project Renderings - View North on Tassajara Road at I-580 Overcrossing7.1.bPacket Pg. 138Attachment: 2. At Dublin Errata January 2020 (At Dublin Intro)