HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.2 - 3154 At Dublin (2)
Page 1 of 22
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: June 16, 2020
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT:
At Dublin Project (PLPA-2017-00061)
Prepared by: Amy Million, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider the At Dublin project which includes development of up to
566 residential units including apartments, detached small-lot single-family homes and
55 and older age restricted single-family homes, up to 240,000 square feet of retail
commercial development, and related infrastructure and landscape improvements. The
project is located on a 76.9-acre site primarily bound by Tassajara Road, Interstate 580,
Brannigan Street and Gleason Drive. Requested approvals include General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, a Planned Development Rezone with Stage
1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, Vesting Tentative Map Nos. 8440, 8449 and 8452, a
Street Vacation, and a Development Agreement. The City Council will also consider
certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct a public hearing, deliberate and take the following actions: a) adopt the
Resolution Amending the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Related to
the At Dublin Project; b) waive the reading and INTRODUCE an Ordinance Amending
the Zoning Map and Approving a Planned Development Zoning District with a Related
Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan; c) adopt the Resolution Approving Vesting
Tentative Map Nos. 8440, 8449,and 8452 for the At Dublin Project; d) waive the reading
and INTRODUCE an Ordinance Approving a Development Agreement Between the
City of Dublin and SCS Development Company Related to the At Dublin Project; and e)
adopt the Resolution Certifying an Environmental Impact Report and Adopting
Environmental Impact Findings, Findings Regarding Alternatives, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the At
Dublin Project
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The review of this project required a fiscal analysis and the conclusions of which are
included in the body of the report. To summarize, the project, as proposed, would
generate nearly $2.0 million in net new tax revenue annually to the City’s General Fund.
There is also anticipated one-time construction-related revenues that are estimated to
exceed $1.06 million.
Page 2 of 22
DESCRIPTION:
Background
The At Dublin project is proposed on property formerly owned by the Dublin Land
Company. The 76.9-gross-acre property is located north of I-580 between Tassajara
Road and Brannigan Street and extends to the north of Gleason Drive (Figure 1).
The property is located in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area and has
Planned Development Zoning (Resolution No. 104-94) adopted with the EDSP. The site
is generally surrounded by commercial uses to the southwest and southeast and
residential uses to the northwest and northeast.
The site is undeveloped and is generally flat with a slight slope from a higher elevation
at the northerly boundary to a slightly lower elevation towards the southerly boundary.
At one time the property was used for agricultural purposes and has remained vacant
(except for temporary seasonal uses) with low-lying native and non-native grasses
turned periodically for the purposes of weed abatement. A small group of trees and
shrubs is located near the corner of Tassajara Road and Central Parkway. No grading
for development purposes has occurred to date.
The majority of the site, excluding the most northerly portion, is located within the
Airport Influence Area (AIA)/Overlay Zoning District. The AIA is a designation by the
Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission. This area is designated as a location in
Page 3 of 22
which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety and/or airspace protection
factors may affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses.
On October 3, 2017, the City Council initiated a General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment Study to evaluate changing the land use designation of the
project site.
On October 30, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 18-24,
recommending that the City Council deny the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendments and the entirety of the At Dublin project which originally incl uded 665
residential units, 400,500 square feet of commercial development and a 2.23 -acre
public park as further described below. The Planning Commission recommended denial
on the basis that the proposed project was not in the public’s best interest, and i t was
inconsistent with the longstanding vision for these parcels which is for less housing and
more office/commercial with a town center feel and walkable environment.
On November 20, 2018, following a request from the Applicant, the City Council
continued the project to an undetermined future date. Subsequently, the Applicant
evaluated potential revisions to the project and on June 4, 2019, the City Council held a
Study Session to receive a presentation by the Applicant regarding those changes. The
Applicant also held a community open house in August 2019 to share the revisions to
the project and receive feedback from the community.
In October 2019, the Applicant submitted a revised project consisting of up to 566
residential units composed of apartments, detached small-lot single family homes and
55-and-older age-restricted single-family homes, and up to 240,000 square feet of retail
commercial development.
On February 25, 2020, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and
recommended that the City Council deny the At Dublin project. The Commission
commented that the proposed project was an improvement to the previous project
presented in 2018, including the addition of the age-qualified housing in PA-2. However,
they expressed concerns regarding traffic, the little amount of commercial and retail, the
parking layout, the new signalized intersection, and the project’s lack of contribution to
the Tassajara “gateway.” The Planning Commission Resolution and the Draft Meeting
Minutes are included as Attachments 1 and 2.
On March 17, 2020 and April 7, 2020, following requests by the Applicant, the City
Council postponed consideration of the At Dublin project.
Previous Project
The previous proposed mixed-use project consisted of up to 665 residential units
including apartments, townhomes, and detached small-lot single family homes and up
to 400,500 sf of commercial, related infrastructure, a public park, and landscape
improvements. Requested land use approvals included a General Plan Amendment,
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Zoning, Site
Development Review Permit, Vesting Tentative Map, Street Vacation, and Development
Agreement.
Page 4 of 22
Current Project
The current project proposes a mixed-use development, which consists of up to 566
residential units and up to 240,000 square feet of commercial uses. The proposed
project is grouped into four planning areas (PA-1, PA-2, PA-3 and PA-4) as show in
Figure 2 below.
Planning Area 1 (PA-1), located south of Dublin Boulevard, is propose d to
accommodate a 240-unit apartment building and mix of retail and regional-serving
commercial uses including a movie theater, office building, hotel, gas station, drive -thru
restaurant and a variety of restaurant and retail uses totaling approximately 2 40,000
square feet.
PA-2 is located between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway and is proposed to
accommodate 196 age-qualified homes for ages 55 years and older. The community
would be composed of 109 single-family detached homes, 87 duet-style homes and a
clubhouse.
PA-3 and PA-4 are located north of Central Parkway and would include small-lot single-
family detached homes. An overview of the Planning Areas is provided in Table 1
below:
Table 1. Planning Areas
Planning Area (PA) Proposed Uses Location
PA-1 Mixed use with regional and
neighborhood commercial uses and
apartments
South of Dublin Boulevard
PA-2 Single-family residential and duplex
(age qualified 55+)
North of Dublin Boulevard
PA-3 and PA-4 Small-lot single-family residential North of Central Parkway
To accommodate the project, the Applicant is seeking the following entitlements, which
are described in further detail below:
• General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments;
• Planned Development Rezone with Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans;
• Vesting Tentative Maps;
• Vacation of Northside Drive; and
• Development Agreement.
Additional discretionary approvals are required to implement the project; however, they
Page 5 of 22
are not requested at this time. Those include approval of a Site De velopment Review
Permit by the Planning Commission for the architectural and site plan details as well as
a Master Sign Program/Site Development Review Permit by the Community
Development Director for the commercial signage.
ANALYSIS:
General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments
The site has several existing General Plan and EDSP land use designations as shown
in Figure 3 and Table 2 below. Most of the site is designated General Commercial with
varying densities of residential along Brannigan St reet and Gleason Drive. The EDSP
assumed average development intensity for each land use designation. As summarized
in Table 2 below, the EDSP anticipated development of 261 residential units and
902,563 square feet of commercial land uses on this site.
Table 2. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Anticipated Development
Land Use Designations Acres Res. Units Commercial s.f.
General Commercial 60.3 -- 846,153
Neighborhood Commercial 3.7 -- 56,410
Medium Density Residential 4.3 43 --
Medium High Density Residential 5.3 106 --
High-Density Residential 3.2 112 --
Public/Semi-Public 3.3 -- --
Total 80.11 261 902,563
1The actual project acreage is 76.9 acres which takes into account frontage
improvements and is based on gross acreage as defined by the Ge neral Plan. Gross
acreage is the net site area plus 25 feet of the area of the abutting streets.
To accommodate the proposed project, the Applicant proposes to simplify the six
existing land use designations interspersed throughout the project site into t hree
primary land use designations organized in large blocks. The proposed land use
designations, and their respective Planning Areas are shown in Figure 4 below.
Page 6 of 22
In addition to the changes to the land use designations, other minor amendments to the
General Plan and EDSP are necessary for consistency. The amendments include
modifications to the public rights-of-way, such as the vacation of Northside Drive,
reduction to the width of Tassajara Road, extension of Brannigan Street south of Dublin
Boulevard and the widening of Dublin Boulevard.
The City Council resolution approving the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan amendments is included as Attachment 3.
Planned Development Rezoning
Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance establishes the intent, purpose and
requirements of the Planned Development District. The Planned Development
Ordinance contains requirements that ensure the project components will be developed
as a cohesive and complementary project. The Development Plan establishes the
following regulations for use of the subject property: permitted and conditionally
permitted uses, development regulations, including setbacks, floor area ratio, height
limits, and parking requirements, standards and design guidelines, site plan, and o ther
requirements which regulate the improvement and maintenance of the property. An
overview of the Planned Development Zoning District is provided below. A Site
Development Review Permit will be required prior to development of each neighborhood
and would be subject to Planning Commission review. Detailed design and elevation
drawings would be provided at that time.
Figure 5 below shows a conceptual site plan for Development Plan. The Applicant is
proposing that the Planned Development Zoning District allow for a variety of retail and
service uses to accommodate the proposed project as well as varying residential
densities. The draft Ordinance providing the details of the proposed zoning is included
as Attachment 4.
Page 7 of 22
The maximum amount of development a llowed by the proposed Planned Development
Zoning is 240,000 square feet of commercial uses and 566 residential units. The
240,000 square feet includes the following:
• 75,000-square foot-hotel with 155 rooms;
• 40,000-square-foot medical office building; and
• 125,000 square feet of retail uses.
Site Plan and Development Standards
Planning Area 1
The Development Plan envisions PA-1 as a mixed-use area with a 240-unit multi-family
residential building at the corner of Dublin Boulevard and Brannigan Street and 240,000
square feet of commercial uses on the remaining area. The area is planned for regional
retail with larger buildings in the middle and along the eastern interior property line and
smaller pad buildings including a fuel station and drive -thru restaurant along Tassajara
Road and Dublin Boulevard.
Access to PA-1 would be provided directly from Tassajara Road, Brannigan Street and
a new signalized “T” or three-way intersection on Dublin Boulevard between Tassajara
Road and Brannigan Street. Brannigan Street, which is currently a private road south of
Dublin Boulevard that serves the Grafton Station shopping center, would become a
public street to accommodate this access as part of the project. Northside Drive, which
currently extends east from Tassajara Road to the stormwater detention basin on the
south side of Grafton Plaza is proposed to be vacated. The proposed signalized
intersection on Dublin Boulevard would create the primary entrance.
The smaller buildings along Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard are envisioned as
single-story retail buildings. The larger format buildings along the eastern property line
and the single building are envisioned as a hotel, office building and movie theater. The
maximum height for PA-1 would be 74 feet, which is intended to accommodate the
hotel. The apartment building is anticipated to be a four-story building wrapped around a
parking structure, leaving the office and movie theater as the other buildings anticipated
to be taller than single-story retail buildings.
The parking requirement for the mix of uses would default to the requirements for each
land use as stated in the Zoning Ordinance, except for the multi -family residential which
is proposed to be 1.75 spaces per unit. The parking in the commercial areas is intended
Page 8 of 22
to be shared by all commercial users. The residential parking garage is designed to
accommodate all required resident and guest parking.
Planning Area 2
PA-2 is composed of 196 one-story and two-story single-family homes and duplexes.
The community would be age-restricted to those 55 years and older and includes a
centrally located clubhouse. The Development Plan envisions each home to have a
private, two-car garage accessed from interior alleys. One additional guest parking
space would also be provided within the development.
Access would be from Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street. No vehicular access from
Central Parkway or Dublin Boulevard is proposed; however, a midblock pedestrian
crossing on Central Parkway is proposed. This would provide direct pedestrian access
between PA-2 and PA-3 to the north.
Planning Areas 3 and 4
PA-3 and PA-4 are composed of 130 small-lot two-story single-family homes. Access to
PA-3 would be provided off Brannigan Street and Central Parkway. Access to PA-4
would be from a single driveway on Gleason Drive.
Similar to PA-2, two parking spaces for each unit would be provided within private
garages; however, they would be located at the front of the home and accessed from
the private street. One additional guest space would be provided either within the
development or on the adjacent street.
Permitted, Conditional, and Temporary Land Uses
The permitted and conditionally permitted uses would vary between the different
Planning Areas. An overview of the types of uses for each Planning Area is provided in
Table 3 below. A complete list of uses is included in the proposed Ordinance.
Page 9 of 22
Table 3. Overview of Allowed Uses
Planning
Area (PA)
Permitted Uses Conditional Uses Temporary Uses
PA-1 Offices
Multi-Family Residential
Restaurants
Personal Services
Indoor Recreation
Plant Nursery
Laboratory
Health Services/Clinic
Comedy Club
Hotel/Motel
Service Station
Retail
Theater
Animal Hospital
Car Wash/Detail
Nightclub
Repair Shop
Drive Thru
Arts and Crafts Fair
Christmas Tree Lots
Farmers’ Markets
PA-2 Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Second Units
Home Occupations
Animal Day Care Model Home Complex
PA-3 and
PA-4
Single Family Residential
Second Units
Home Occupations
Bed and Breakfast
Animal Day Care
Model Home Complex
The complete list of uses is provided in the Planned Development Ordinance for the
project site (Attachment 4).
Design Theme
The design theme provided in the Planned Development provides the framework for the
future Site Development Review Permits. The architecture for the revised project utilizes
the extensive efforts from the previous project by maintaining the same design theme
which is based on clean, simple lines using natural materials and a classic color palette
(see illustrative examples below). According to the Applicant, the project’s materials,
landscapes, and architecture are subtle reflections of farm life, and are guided by the
concept of “modern agrarian,” taking inspiration from Dublin’s agricultural past and
California’s wine regions.
Illustrative example of single-family residential architecture.
Page 10 of 22
Illustrative examples of multi-family residential architecture.
Illustrative example of commercial architecture.
Page 11 of 22
Commercial Area - Tenant Design Criteria
The goal of the architecture in the commercial area is to promote distinct storefronts and
interesting architecture facing the public rights -of-way. In order to promote distinct
storefronts in the commercial areas, the Applicant is proposing Tenant Design Criteria
to be included as part of the Planned Development Zoning . The objective of the Tenant
Design Criteria is to allow the maximum expression of a store’s individual personality
and character while maintaining a cohesive design theme throughout t he project. The
criteria allows the commercial architecture to be enhanced through an individual
tenant’s brand identity and expression. Examples of the types of enhancements are
architectural canopies and overhangs, decorative lighting, and artisan railin gs for
outdoor seating areas. The building materials and features proposed as part of the
Tenant Design Criteria were selected to provide guidance to the Site Development
Review Permit and future tenants.
The details of the Tenant Design Criteria are pro vided in the Planned Development
Ordinance (Attachment 4).
Project Phasing
The project is proposed to be constructed in two phases as shown in Figure 6 and Table
4 below. The proposed phasing plan addresses the development needs of the Applicant,
the interests of the City, and places the areas identified in the biological assessments as
having potential wetlands into a separate phase. Although the project is divided into
different phases, the Applicant anticipates that these phases would overlap with most of
the construction happening concurrently.
To ensure that the residential portions of the project do not wholly develop in advance of
the retail/commercial portions, a restriction has been imposed that n o building permits
Page 12 of 22
shall be issued for development on PA-3 or PA-4 until the improvement plans for Phase
1 and/or Phase 2 in PA-1 have been approved and bonds posted.
Table 4. Phasing Plan
Planning
Area Land Use Designations Use Phase
1 Mixed Use Commercial and Apartments 1
1 Mixed Use Commercial 2
2 Medium Density Residential Single Family-Homes and
Duplexes (Age Qualified 55+) 1
3 Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential 2
4 Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential 2
Inclusionary Zoning
Pursuant to the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Chapter 8.68 of the Dublin
Municipal Code), developments of more than 20 residential units are required to set
aside 12.5 percent of the units in the project as affordable units. The City’s regulations
also allow for exceptions commonly referred to as an “alternative method of
compliance.” These exceptions include the payment of fees in lieu of constructing
affordable units, construction of off-site housing projects, land dedication, etc.
The proposed project requests up to 566 units, of which 71 units are required to be
designated as affordable units. The 71 units are assumed to be a mix of rental units
(apartments) and for-sale (single-family homes and duplexes) and are broken down in
terms of affordability levels as shown in Table 5 below:
Table 5. Affordable Unit Breakdown
Very Low Low Moderate Total No. of Units
9 22 40 71
The project proposes to satisfy the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Regulations through
various methods, which will be outlined in the Development Agreemen t. For additional
detail, refer to the Development Agreement section below.
Vesting Tentative Map
The application includes a request for Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) Nos. 8440, 8449,
and 8452 to create the individual development parcels, identify those areas that would
be reserved as open and/or common space, easements to provide access through the
project site, preliminary grading, drainage, stormwater management and utilities, and
adjacent right-of-way improvements. The Resolution approving VTM Nos. 8440, 8449
and 8452 is included as Attachment 5. An overview of the VTM is provided below and
VTM is included as Attachment 6.
VTM No. 8440 pertains to the commercial area south of Dublin Boulevard in PA -1. The
lotting plan creates seven individual parcels for the primary building and defines the
access points from Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard, and Brannigan Street as
Page 13 of 22
previously described. The vacation of Northside Drive and the extension of Brannigan
Street are also included.
VTM No. 8449 pertains to the age-qualified community proposed for PA-2 north of
Dublin Boulevard. The lotting plan creates 196 residential parcels in addition to common
area parcels for the private streets, alleys, a clubhouse, and perimeter landscape buffer.
The map defines the two access points from Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street. As
previously described, the layout of the neighborhood provides for access to the homes
from alleys creating groups of six homes, except for 14 in -line parcels that front along
Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway.
VTM No. 8452 is for PA-3 and PA-4 and creates 130 residential parcels in addition to
the common area parcels of the private streets, a small community park, and perimeter
landscape buffer. The map defines the two access points for PA -3 on Central Parkway
and Brannigan Street and the single access point off Gleason Road for PA -4. As
previously described the layout of the residential parcels and the private streets
provides for direct access to the two-car garage and front entry of the homes.
Vacation of Northside Drive
The application includes a request to vacate Northside Drive which runs along the south
side of the property just north of I-580. This existing City street provides access from
Tassajara Road to the existing stormwater detention basin adjacent to Grafton Plaza as
well as other City facilities (i.e., culverts). The layout of PA-1 would ensure that the City
would retain access through the project site to the basin and other facilities along
Northside Drive east of the project site. The details regarding the Applicant’s acquisition
of Northside Drive is provided in the proposed Development Agreement.
Development Agreement
The proposed Development Agreement is one means the City has to assure that the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan goal of new development funding the costs of
infrastructure and service is met. The Development Agreement also provides security to
the developer that the City will not change its zoning and other laws applicable to the
project for five years. Additionally, it is a mechanism for the City to obtain commitments
from the Applicant that the City might not otherwise be able to obtain.
The proposed Development Agreement sets forth the terms to many items, including,
but not limited to, infrastructure construction and phasing and the payment of fees. The
Development Agreement becomes effective for a term of five years from the date it is
recorded. The Development Agreement runs with the land and the rights thereunder
can be assigned. The City Council Ordinance approving the Development Agreement
and the Development Agreement itself are provided as Attachments 7 and 8,
respectively. The main points of the Development Agreement are highlighted below:
Affordable Housing
The Development Agreement lays out the way in which the Applicant will satisfy the
City’s Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. The proposed “alternative method of
compliance” for the 71 affordable units includes the option of constructing 40 moderate
income units on- or off-site, or through the payment of an in-lieu fee. It also includes
acquisition of a 1.33-acre parcel at 6541 and 6543 Regional Street (APN: 941-150-25)
from the City and dedicating the parcel to a non -profit housing developer or transferring
Page 14 of 22
the right to acquire the parcel to a non -profit housing developer. In the event the City
owns the parcel, the Applicant would agree to pay the City $5,000,000.
Community Benefit Payment
In addition to the affordable housing proposal above, the Development Agreement
requires the Applicant to contribute $3,200,000 if the Applicant elects to construct the 40
moderate income units, or $3,600,000 if the Applicant elects to pay fees in lieu of
constructing the units. The community benefit payment can be spent at the City
Council’s discretion.
Vacation of Northside Drive
As part of the Development Agreement, the City agrees to vacate Northside Drive for
the acquisition of the land by the Applicant at fair market value.
Extension of Brannigan Street
Project approval would require the Applicant to construct the extension of Brannigan
Street south of Dublin Boulevard which includes acquiring the necessary rights from the
property owner.
Fiscal Analysis
The General Plan requires that the “fiscal impact of new residential development in the
Eastern Extended Planning Area supports itself and does not draw upon and dilute the
fiscal base of the remainder of the city”.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan expands upon this policy through the following
Financing Goal: “New development in the Specific Plan area should pay the full cost of
infrastructure needed to serve the area and should fund the costs of mitigating adverse
impacts on the City’s existing infrastructure and services.” To thoroughly evaluate the
fiscal impact of the proposed At Dublin project, the City engaged the services of Keyser
Marston Associates (KMA) to prepare a Fiscal Analysis of the project. The Fiscal
Analysis, which was updated to reflect the revised project, confirmed that the project
would be fiscally neutral or better. The key findings of the analysis are summarized
below.
➢ The project would annually generate approximately $1.98 million of net new tax
revenues to the City’s General Fund, of which $746,000 is attributed to the
residential component.
➢ The one-time construction-related revenues that would be generated by the
Project are estimated to exceed $1.06 million.
The Fiscal Analysis is attached to this report as Attachment 9.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLANS, AND ZONING
ORDINANCE:
The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan as amended. The General Plan allows for a variety of residential and
commercial uses in this area of Dublin which the proposed project would achieve. The
General Plan encourages projects to relate well to the surrounding developments, and
Page 15 of 22
the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood that includes
residential, public park, commercial, and office uses.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provides design guidelines to guide development
within the Specific Plan area. The proposed project would meet the intent of the
guidelines and carefully integrates the development and infrastructure improvements
into the existing fabric of the area. The proposed project would be consi stent with the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan because the Plan states that regionally oriented
commercial uses should be located south of Dublin Boulevard and near freeway
interchanges where convenient vehicular access will limit traffic impacts to the rest of
Dublin. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provides for a mix of housing types and are
strongly encouraged in the Town Center, which encompasses the area north of Dublin
Boulevard.
Intersection Spacing – General Plan
Dublin Boulevard is classified as an arterial street in the General Plan. Arterial streets
are designed to distribute localized trips. The General Plan specifies that intersections
shall be spaced no closer than 750 feet, except in special circumstances, intersection
spacing less than 750 feet may be allowed with the approval of the Public Works
Director/City Engineer. As part of the project review, including the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR), the proposed intersection was evaluated for its impact to the street
network as well as to public safety. The proposed intersection was modified from a full
intersection to a three-way as part of the revised project and both configurations were
evaluated. As a result of this review, the EIR includes a mitigation measure to address
the impacts of the intersection during the peak period of traffic. The mitigation measure
would restrict the movement of vehicles at the intersection out of the project site
providing priority to the vehicles on Dublin Boulevard. This mitigation measure would
ensure that traffic impacts to Dublin Boulevard and public safety are addressed. Based
on the EIR analysis and Mitigation Measure TR-1, the impacts of the proposed
intersection would be reduced to a level of less than significant. With that said, the
spacing of the new intersection is not preferred, therefore it is important to evaluate the
project as a whole and consider both the impacts and the benefits of its inclusion. The
new intersection results in traffic impacts as detailed and addressed in the EIR, provides
a greater level of connectivity between PA-1 and PA-2, and was incorporated into the
application in order to meet the economic and access needs of the development.
Airport Influence Area/Overlay Zoning District
The majority of the site, excluding the most northerly portion, is located within the
Airport Influence Area (AIA)/Overlay Zoning District. This area is designated as an area
in which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety and/or airspace
protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those
uses. The AIA is a designation by the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission.
All permitted and conditionally permitted uses set forth in a Planned Development
Zoning District that was adopted and in effect prior to August 2012 are considered
“Existing Land Uses” pursuant to the Livermore Municipal Airport ALUCP. The Alameda
County ALUC has no authority over Existing Land Uses unless changes to an Existing
Land Use results in an increase of nonconformity with ALUCP policies. The proposed
Planned Development Zoning District does not include any new land uses beyond what
was allowed in the existing Planned Development Zoning District. More specifically, the
Page 16 of 22
existing and proposed Planned Development Zoning District allows a variety of
residential and commercial uses, including assembly land uses such as a hotel, movie
theater, and other similar uses.
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Standards and Policies
The Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards document was adopted by
the City Council in 1996 as a means of implementing the requirements of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan. The Scenic Corridor policies establish standards for projects within
the scenic corridor viewshed. Along the I-580 corridor, the document identified three
critical viewpoints of Dublin’s “Visually Sensitive Ridgelands,” of which Viewpoint 2
looking northeast to the ridgelands from the Tassajara Road/I-580 overpass applies to
the project.
Viewpoint 2 requires that developments maintain generally uninterrupted views and
have structures that do not extend above the horizon of the Visually Sensitive
Ridgelands for more than 25 percent of the total horizon line. The EIR provides a
detailed analysis of the project’s impacts to the v iewpoint and finds that the proposed
development (including the tallest building at 74 feet, the hotel), does not extend above
the horizon of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands for more than 25 percent of the total
horizon line. As shown in updated Figure 5-6: Simulation Viewpoint 5, contained in the
EIR, the revised project shifts the tallest building south and would not extend above the
horizon of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands for more than 25 percent of the total
horizon line.
Semi-Public Facilities Policy
In 2004, the City Council adopted a Semi-Public Facilities Policy that requires the
consideration of opportunities for cultural, education, and other community services
when reviewing amendments to the land use map of the General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan. The purpose of the Semi-Public Facilities Policy, among others,
was to create a greater sense of community, enrich community identify, increase public
access to community services, and anticipate the needs of Dublin’s diverse community.
The Policy applies to all General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments
which involve 150 or more single-family housing units and/or 250 or more medium
density or great units. The Policy establishes various standards which encourage, but
do not require, the inclusion of a Semi-Public Facilities at a rate of one acre per 1,000
residences. The proposed project is estimated to generate a population of 1,528
persons (1.5 acres). To meet the intent of the City’s policy, the proposed project is
proposing to make a cash contribution to the City as a community benefit. As provided
in the Development Agreement, the amount of the cash contribution is determined on
how the Applicant elects to satisfy the affordable housing requirement. The community
benefit payment can be used at the City Council’s discretion.
Town Center Priority Development Area
The proposed project is located within the Dublin Town Center Priority Development
Area (PDA). This PDA includes a mix of housing types, including single-family
detached, town homes, condominiums and apartments and surrounds the commercial
core for eastern Dublin. The proposed project supports the goals of the PDA through
the development of residential and commercial uses.
Page 17 of 22
REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES:
The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, and Dublin
San Ramon Services District reviewed the project and provided Conditions of Approval
where appropriate to ensure that the proposed project is established in comp liance with
all local Ordinances and Regulations. Conditions of Approval from these departments
and agencies have been included in the attached Resolution for the Vesting Tentative
Maps (Attachment 5).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The City released a Notice of Preparation for an EIR on January 17, 2018 and held a
public scoping meeting on January 30, 2018. The City received four letters regarding
the scope of the EIR. Subsequently, a Draft EIR (see Attachment 11) was prepared and
circulated to the public for 45 days. The comment period was open from July 6, 2018 to
August 20, 2018. The City received 13 comment letters during the public review and
comment period. Responses have been prepared to each of the comments received by
the City. The comments and associated responses together constitute the Final EIR
(Attachment 12).
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared in 2018 for the previous
project and, therefore, it analyzed a higher residential density and more commercial
square footage than the proposed project. See Table 6 for a comparison of the
maximum development evaluated in the EIR and the actual proposed development in
the Planned Development and Vesting Tentative Maps.
Table 6. At Dublin Proposed Development
PA Use Commercial SF / No. of Units FAR/ Du/Ac
EIR Project EIR Project EIR Project EIR Project
1 1 Commercial
Mixed Use:
Commercial
& Apartments
370,000 SF 240,000 SF /
240 units .27 FAR .44 FAR
2a
2b
2c
2
Mixed Use:
Commercial,
Apartments,
Townhomes
Single-Family
Residential &
Duplexes
84,500 SF
500 units
196 units
(AQ 55+)
.65 FAR
16.53
Du/Ac
6.7
Du/Ac
3 3 Single-Family
Residential
Single-Family
Residential 180 units 130 units 7.66
Du/Ac
5.5
Du/Ac 4 4 Single-Family
Residential
Single-Family
Residential
TOTAL 454,500 SF /
680 units
240,000 SF /
566 units
An overview of the analysis of the EIR is provided below.
The Draft EIR examined potential environmental impacts resulting from the project in
the following topic areas:
Page 18 of 22
• Aesthetics *
• Biological Resources *
• Cultural and Tribal Resources *
• Geology and Soils *
• Noise *
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials *
• Energy
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use
• Population and Housing
• Public Services and Utilities
• Air Quality
• Transportation
The Draft EIR classifies the environmental impacts as follows:
• Class I are significant and unavoidable.
• Class II can be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
• Class III are less than significant and do not require mitigation.
In summary, the Draft EIR concludes that the project will have potentially significant
impact in eight of the 16 topic areas (note above with “*”) and mitigation measures have
been prepared to reduce the impacts in these areas to a level that is less than
significant (Class II).
There were no potentially significant impacts identified for the six topics areas
(underlined above) and, therefore, no mitigation is required (Class III).
Similar to other infill projects of this size, impacts were identified where, even with the
implementation of mitigation measures, the effects to the environment would still be
expected to be significant (Class I). The identified impacts, noted in italics above, are
related to air quality and transportation. Although mitigation measures were prepared to
reduce the level of the impact, the impacts could not be fully reduced to less than
significant in all instances.
An overview of all the topic areas is provided below.
Aesthetics
To address potential aesthetic impacts associated with the project, simulations from five
viewpoints were prepared and compared to existing conditions. The EIR concluded that
the project would not adversely impact views from a scenic vista or substantially alter
the existing visual character because the building heights, massing and materials are
generally consistent with the surrounding land uses. Potential impacts associated with
light and glare were identified. The Draft EIR identifies a mitigation measure to reduce
the impact to a level of less than significant.
Page 19 of 22
Air Quality
The Draft EIR identifies potentially significant impacts to air quality and includes
mitigation measures. Although mitigation measures were prepared to reduce the level of
the impact, the impacts could not be fully reduced to less than significant in all
instances. The project’s cumulative impact would exceed the air quality thresholds
established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for nitrogen oxides (Nox)
and reactive organic gases (ROG) emissions. The predominant source of NOx
emissions would be mobile sources (i.e., project generated vehicle trips).
Biological Resources
The project site contains approximately 77 acres of non-sensitive ruderal habitat
composed primarily of disced and mowed areas of disturbed vegetation. These
biological communities are not considered sensitive natural communities or riparian
habitat. The Draft EIR identifies other biological resources such as wetlands and
special status species (e.g., Congdon tarplant, saline clover, burrowing owl, etc.) that
would be impacted by the project and, therefore, identifies mitigation measures to
reduce the project’s impact on these biological resources to a level of less than
significant.
Cultural and Tribal Resources
The project site is not listed as a historic site or a tribal resource. Nonetheless, there is
always the possibility that previously unknown historic resources exist below the ground
surface within the project site. As such, development of the project site was determined
to have a potentially significant impact. The Draft EIR identifies mitigation measures to
reduce the impact to a level of less than significant.
Energy
There were no potentially significant impacts identified for energy and, therefore, no
mitigation is required.
Geology and Soils
Geologic-related impacts from development are site-specific and, if properly designed,
would not result in worsening of the environment or public health and safety impacts. As
part of the building permit application, the Applicant is required to submit a design -level
geotechnical report. This report would provide recommendations on the appropriate
level of soil engineering and building design necessary to minimize ground -shaking
hazards. The Draft EIR builds off these existing requirements and requires the Applicant
to submit a design-level geotechnical report to the City of Dublin for review and approval
and implement recommendations under the approved report. The implementation of this
mitigation measure would ensure that the project impacts would be less than significant.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
There were no potentially significant impacts identified for greenhouse gas emissions
and, therefore, no mitigation is required.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As previously noted, the project site is vacant except for seasonal uses. The Draft EIR
identified a limited amount of hazardous materials on the project site, including two five -
gallon buckets of petroleum hydrocarbon, stained soils, and solid waste debris. As such
Page 20 of 22
the Draft EIR identified a mitigation measure to reduce this impact to less than
significant.
Hydrology
There were no potentially significant impacts identified for hydrology and, therefore, no
mitigation is required. Projects, such as the proposed project, involving construction on
sites that are one acre or more are required by regulation to prepare and implement a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that specifies how the discharger will protect
water quality during construction activities
Land Use
There were no potentially significant impacts identified for land use and, therefore, no
mitigation is required.
Noise
The Draft EIR identified potentially significant noise impacts related to project
construction in the short term as well as longer-term noise exposure of future residents
by mobile traffic noise from the adjacent City streets. Similar to other projects in the City
where noise barriers such as patio enclosures and walls are incorporated into the
project design, the proposed project would incorporate these features based on a future
acoustical study as part of the Site Development Review Permit. Residential
neighborhoods adjacent to the project site along Tassajara Road and Gleason Drive are
designed with masonry walls along the project frontage to reduce noise impacts on the
residents as well as provide an enhanced aesthetic to the street frontage. Accordingly,
the Draft EIR identifies mitigation measures, including the regulation of construction
equipment and the requirement for an acoustical study demonstrating all residential
units would meet the City’s noise standards. These mitigation measures would reduce
the project noise impacts to a level of less than significant.
Population and Housing
There were no potentially significant impacts identified for population and housing and,
therefore, no mitigation is required.
Public Services and Utilities
There were no potentially significant impacts identified for public services and utilities
and, therefore, no mitigation is required.
Transportation
The project’s vehicle trip generation would result in impacts to the existing street
network as well as the new signalized intersection on Dublin Boulevard. To address the
impacts to existing intersections, mitigation measures are proposed that require the
Applicant to pay the project’s proportionate fair share of the improvements. These
improvements vary by intersection and include such things as adjusting signal timing,
ramp metering rates, and additional turn lanes. For the new signalize d intersection on
Dublin Boulevard, Mitigation Measure TR-1:1 restricts left turn movements during peak
time periods.
Page 21 of 22
Public Comments on Final EIR
The At Dublin Final EIR was published on October 24, 2018. Prior to the October 30,
2018 Planning Commission meeting, the City received additional comment letters
regarding the EIR. These comments were reviewed, and it was determined that no new
and/or substantial information was presented that was not previously evaluated per the
City’s CEQA significance thresholds. Although responses to these comments are not
required under CEQA, it is important to acknowledge them. As a result, minor changes
to Mitigation Measures BIO-1.1, BIO-1.2 and BIO-1.3 and Impact BIO-6 were made.
The minor changes are included as Attachment 13.
Errata for Revised Project
As previously noted, in October 2019, the Applicant submitted a revised project based
on comments from the community. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, the
City analyzed the revised project and determined that there was no new significant
information or new significant environmental impact as a result of the revised project.
The City prepared an Errata to the EIR to this effect which is included as Attachment 14.
The City Council resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report is included
as Attachment 10. In order to approve the project, the City Council must make findings
regarding significant impacts and mitigation measures (Attachment 15), findings
concerning infeasibility of alternatives and potential additional mitigation measures
(Attachment 16) and will need to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC)
(Attachment 17) that identifies all environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated and
explains why the benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable environmental
impacts. The SOC is required in order to approve the project, if desired by a majority of
the City Council.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
In accordance with State law, a public notice was mailed to all property owners and
occupants within 300 feet of the project site. A public notice was also provided to an
expanded area beyond 300 feet, to surrounding residents and businesses including the
following neighboring communities: The Cottages, The Villas, The Courtyards, Sorrento
West, Sonata, a portion of Tassajara Meadows, Grafton Station, and the Waterford
residential and commercial developments, and to interested parties. A public notice also
was published in the East Bay Times and posted at several locations throughout the
City. A Planning Application sign was posted on the project site and the project was also
included on the City’s development projects webpage. A copy of this Staff Report has
been provided to the Applicant.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-05
2. Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2020
3. Resolution Approving General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments
4. Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map and Approving a Planned Development District
5. Resolution Approving Vesting Tentative Maps
6. Exhibit A to the Resolution - Vesting Tentative Map
7. Ordinance Adopting Development Agreement
Page 22 of 22
8. Exhibit A to the Ordinance - Development Agreement
9. Fiscal Analysis
10. Resolution Certifying Final EIR
11. Exhibit A to the Resolution - Draft EIR
12. Exhibit B to the Resollution - Final EIR
13. Exhibit C to the Resolution - Minor Changes to EIR
14. Exhibit D to the Resolution - EIR Errata January 2020
15. Exhibit E to the Resolution - Findings Mitigation Measures
16. Exhibit F to the Resolution - Findings Alternatives
17. Exhibit G to the Resolution - Statement of Overriding Considerations
18. Exhibit H to the Resolution - MMRP
19. Public Comment
RESOLUTION NO. 20-05
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY THE AMENDMENTS TO THE
GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE
AT DUBLIN PROJECT
PLPA 2017-00061
(APNS 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, AND 985-0052-025)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Shea Properties in partnership with SCS Development
Company, is requesting a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
and Vesting Tentative Maps for the At Dublin project. The proposed project includes up to 566
residential units comprised of apartments, detached small-lot single-family homes and 55 and
older age restricted single-family homes, up to 240,000 square feet of retail commercial
development, and related infrastructure and landscape improvements. Requested land u se
approvals include a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment,
Planned Development Rezoning (Stage 1 and Stage 2), Vesting Tentative Map Nos. 8440, 8449
and 8452, a Street Vacation and a Development Agreement, among other related actions. These
planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the “At Dublin Project” or the
“Project;” and
WHEREAS, the Project site is approximately 76.9 acres generally bound by Tassajara
Road, Gleason Drive, Brannigan Street and I -580 (APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-
0051-006, 985-0052-024, and 985-0052-025); and
WHEREAS, the existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use
designations for the project site are Neighborhood Commercial, General Commercial, Medium
Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential, High Density Residential, and
Public/Semi-Public; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to simplify the six existing land use designations
interspersed throughout the project site to the following land use designations organized in large
blocks of Mixed Use, Medium Density Residential and Single-Family Residential. In addition, other
amendments to the provisions of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are proposed
to ensure consistency with the new land use designations for the project site; and
WHEREAS, the Project site is located within the Dublin Town Center Priority Development
Area (PDA) which includes a mix of housing types including single-family detached, town homes,
condominiums and apartments. The Town Center PDA is envisioned as a walkable area with
locally serving businesses within walking distance or a short ride from residential neighborhoods,
conveniently served by transit; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did not take action on the Environmental Impact
Report as projects that are denied are exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section
15061 (b)(4) of the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated February 25, 2020, and incorporated herein by
reference, was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission recommending approval of
the project including the General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments,
Planned Development Rezoning with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, Vesting
Tentative Map Nos. 8440, 8449 and 8452, Street Vacation, Development Agreement and
certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report, for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the
Project, on February 25, 2020, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all reports, recommendations
and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the Project;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Final EIR, all above-referenced
reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council deny the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
and the At Dublin project based on traffic impacts, pedestrian and bicycle concerns, and the
Project’s inconsistency with the longstanding vision for these parcels, namely less housing and
more commercial/retail serving as a “town center” and “gateway to the city” with a walkable
environment.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 25th day of February 2020 by the following
vote:
AYES: Kothari, Wright, Benson
NOES: Thalblum, Grier
ABSENT: Mittan
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________
Assistant Community Development Director
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Tuesday, February 25, 2020
Planning Commission February 25, 2020
Regular Meeting Page | 1
A Regular Meeting of the Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February
25, 2020, in the Council Chamber. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM, by
Commission Chairperson Thalblum.
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
Attendee Name Title Status
Janine Thalblum Planning Commission Chair Present
Dawn Benson Planning Commission Vice Chair Present
Amit Kothari Planning Commissioner Present
Scott Mittan Planning Commissioner Absent
Stephen Wright Planning Commissioner Present
Catheryn Grier Alternate Planning Commissioner Present
Dawn Plants Alternate Planning Commissioner Present
2. Oral Communications
2.1. Public Comment
Shirley Lewandowski, Dublin Resident, provided public comment.
Michael Urueta, Dublin Resident, provided public comment.
3. Consent Calendar
3.1. Approve the Minutes of the February 11, 2020 Planning Commission
Meeting
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVED BY: Stephen Wright
SECOND: Amit Kothari
AYES: Janine Thalblum, Dawn Benson, Catheryn Grier
4. Written Communication - None.
5. Public Hearing
5.1 At Dublin Project (PLPA-2017-00061)
Amy Million, Principal Planner, made a presentation.
Planning Commission February 25, 2020
Regular Meeting Page | 2
Commission Chairperson Thalblum opened the public hearing.
Kevin Fryer, representing SCS Development, made a presentation.
Kevin McCook, Vice President of Development with Shea Properties, made a
presentation.
Dave Wolfgram, representing Amy’s Drive Thru, made a presentation.
Carl Cox, Owner of Cox Family Stores, made a presentation.
Kevin Fryer, representing SCS Development, summarized his presentation, and
responded to questions posed by the Commission.
Kevin McCook, Vice President of Development with Shea Properties, responded to
questions posed by the Commission.
Amy Million, Principal Planner, responded to questions by the Commission.
Obaid Khan, Transportation and Operations Manager, responded to questions posed by
the Commission.
Kevin Fryer, representing SCS Development, responded to follow up questions by the
Commission.
Kevin McCook, Vice President of Development with Shea Properties, responded to
follow up questions by the Commission.
Elliott Edge, Dublin Resident, provided public comment.
Michael Urueta, Dublin Resident, provided public comment.
Paige Fennie, representing the Laborer’s International Union of North America Local
Union 304, provided public comment.
Shirley Lewandowski, Dublin Resident, provided public comment.
Danita Romero, Dublin Chamber of Commerce, provided public comment.
Leonard Nieto, Dublin Resident, provided public comment.
Jennet Herdman, Dublin Resident, provided public comment.
Inge Houston, Dublin Chamber of Commerce, provided public comment.
Planning Commission February 25, 2020
Regular Meeting Page | 3
Nima Moorjani, Dublin Resident, provided public comment.
Commission Chairperson Thalblum closed the public hearing.
Amy Million, Principal Planner, responded to follow up questions by the Commission.
Jordyn Bishop, City Attorney, responded to questions posed by the Commission.
Kristie Wheeler, Assistant Community Development Director, responded to questions
posed by the Commission.
On a motion by Commissioner Wright, seconded by Commissioner Kothari, the Planning
Commission took the following action:
RESOLUTION NO. 20-05
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY THE AMENDMENTS TO THE
GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE ENTIRETY
OF THE AT DUBLIN PROJECT
PLPA 2017-00061
(APNS 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, AND
985-0052-025)
RESULT: DENIED [3-2 VOTE]
MOVED BY: Stephen Wright
SECOND: Amit Kothari
AYES: Stephen Wright, Dawn Benson, Amit Kothari,
NOES: Janine Thalblum, Catheryn Grier
6. Unfinished Business - None.
7. New Business – None.
8. Other Business
Kristie Wheeler, Assistant Community Development Director, informed the Commission
that the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 10, 2020.
Kristie Wheeler, Assistant Community Development Director, informed the
Commissioners attending the League of California Cities Annual Planning
Planning Commission February 25, 2020
Regular Meeting Page | 4
Commissioners Academy that they received a packet containing their reservation
information.
9. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned by Commission Chairperson Thalblum at 9:39 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Kristie Wheeler
Assistant Community Development Director
1
RESOLUTION NO. xx-20
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * *
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN RELATED
TO THE AT DUBLIN PROJECT
PLPA 2017-00061
(APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, AND 985-0052-025)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Shea Properties in partnership with SCS Development
Company, is requesting a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment for the At Dublin Project. The proposed Project includes up to 566 residential units
comprised of apartments, detached small-lot single-family homes and 55 and older age
restricted single-family homes, up to 240,000 square feet of retail commercial devel opment,
and related infrastructure and landscape improvements. Requested land use approvals include
a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned
Development Rezoning (Stage 1 and Stage 2), Vesting Tentative Maps, a Street Vacation, and
a Development Agreement, among other related actions. These planning and implementing
actions are collectively known as the “At Dublin Project” or the “Project ;” and
WHEREAS, the Project site is 76.9 acres generally bound by Tassajara Road, Gleason
Drive, Brannigan Street and I-580 (APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-
0052-024, and 985-0052-025); and
WHEREAS, the existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use
designations for the Project site are Neighborhood Commercial, General Commercial, Medium
Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential, High Density Residential, and
Public/Semi-Public; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to simplify the six existing land use designations
interspersed throughout the Project site to the following land use designations organized in
large blocks of Mixed Use, Medium Density Residential and Single Family Residential. In
addition, other amendments to the provisions of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan are proposed to ensure consistency with the new land use designations for the Project
site; and
WHEREAS, the Project site is located within the Dublin Town Center Priority
Development Area (PDA) which includes a mix of housing types including single -family
detached, townhomes, condominiums and apartments. The Town Center PDA is envisioned as
a walkable area with locally serving businesses within walking dista nce or a short ride from
residential neighborhoods, conveniently served by transit; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the CEQA
Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that certain projects
be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City prepared a Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated July 2018, a Final EIR dated October 2018, and an
2
Errata dated January 2020, for the proposed Project, which reflected the City’s independent
judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR identified potentially significant environmental effects
anticipated as a result of the Project such as, aesthetics, air quality, biological resources,
cultural and tribal resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, a nd
transportation, most of which can be substantially reduced through mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was circulated for 45 days for public comment from July 6,
2018 to August 20, 2018; and
WHEREAS, comments received on the Draft EIR were reviewed and responded to, and
the Final EIR (that contains the Response to Comments) dated October 2018 was prepared;
and
WHEREAS, following a public hearing on October 30, 2018, the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution No. 18-24, recommending denial of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendments and the entirety of the Project, consisting of up to 665 residential
units comprised of apartments, townhomes and detached small-lot single family homes and up
to 400,500 sf of commercial, related infrastructure, a public park and landscape improvements,
which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during
normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2018, following a request from the Applicant, the City
Council continued the Project to an undetermined future date; and
WHEREAS, in October 2019, the Applicant submitted a revised Project in response to
public comments, consisting of up to 566 residential units comprised of apartments, detached
small-lot single family homes and 55 and older age restricted single-family homes, up to
240,000 square feet of retail commercial development, and related infrastructure and landscape
improvements; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, the City analyzed the
revised Project and determined that there was no new significant information, or substantially
more severe, significant environmental impact as a result of the revised Project, requiring
recirculation of the EIR; and
WHEREAS, consistent with Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the
City obtained a contact list of local Native American tribes from the Native American Heritage
Commission and notified the tribes on the contact list of the opportunity to consult with the City
on the proposed General Plan Amendment. None of the contacted tribes requested a
consultation within the 90-day statutory consultation period and no further action is required;
and
WHEREAS, following a public hearing on February 25, 2020, the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution No. 20-05, recommending denial of the proposed amendments to the
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the At Dublin project based on traffic
impacts, pedestrian and bicycle concerns, and the Project’s inconsistency with the longstanding
vision for these parcels, namely less housing and more commercial/retail serving as a “town
3
center” and “gateway to the city” with a walkable environment, which resolution is incorporated
herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated June 16, 2020 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project, including the General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendments, Planned Development Rezoning and related Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Map Nos. 8440, 8449 and 8452, a Street Vacation, a
Development Agreement and certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report, for the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project,
including the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, on June
16, 2020 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, on June 16, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. xx-20 certifying
the At Dublin Final EIR and adopting CEQA findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations,
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use independent judgment and considered all
said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds that the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, as set forth below, are in the public interest, will
promote general health, safety and welfare, and that the General Plan as amended will remain
internally consistent. The proposed Project is consistent with the guiding and implementing
policies of the General Plan in each of the elements and will allow for a mixed-use development
consisting of both residential and commercial uses. The General Plan Amendments noted
below will ensure that the implementation of the proposed Project is in compliance with the
General Plan and that each element within the General Plan is internally consistent.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following
amendments to the General Plan:
Figure 1-1 (Dublin General Plan Land Use Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street south of
Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the Project site and shall be amended with a
new land use designations for the Project site as shown below:
4
Figure 2-1 (Dublin General Plan Sites for Housing Development Map) shall be amended to show
Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the Project site.
Figure 2-2 (Dublin General Plan Open Space Initiative Protection Areas Map) shall be amended to
show Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the Project
site.
Table 2.2 (Land Use Development Potential: Eastern Extended Planning Area) shall be amended to
read as follows:
Table 2.2. LAND USEDEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL: EASTERN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA
ACRES
INTENSITY
UNITS1
FACTOR
YIELD1
CLASSIFICATION ACRES INTENSITY UNITS1 FACTOR YIELD1
RESIDENTIAL Acres Dwelling
Units/Acre Dwelling Units Persons/ Dwelling Unit Population
High Density 52.94 25 .1+ 1,329+ 2 .7 3,588+
Medium-High Density
132.51
14 .1-25 .0
1,868-3,313
2 .7
5,045-8,944
Medium-High Density and Retail Office
0 14 .1-25 .0 0 2 .7 0
Medium-Density 430.5 6 .1-14 .0 2,626-6,027 2 .7 7,090-16,273
Single Family 748.8 0 .9-6 .0 674-4,493 2 .7 1,820-12,131
Estate Residential 30 .5 0 .01-0 .8 0-24 2 .7 0-65
Rural Residential/ Agriculture 329.8 0 .01 3 2 .7 9
TOTAL: 1,707.05 6,500-15,189+ 17,552 -41,010+
COMMERCIAL Acres Floor Area
Ratio (Gross)
Square Feet
(millions) Square Feet/ Employee Jobs
General Commercial 238.8 .20- .60 2 .1-6.86 510 4,079-12,238
General Commercial/ Campus Office
95 .22 .20- .80 .83-3 .32 385 2,155-7,325
Mixed Use 30.4 .30-1 .00 .40-1.3 490 811-2,702
Mixed Use 2/ Campus Office 22 .9 .45 max .45 260 1,731
Neighborhood Commercial 17.59 .25- .60 .19- .46 490 391-938
Campus Office 195 .58 .25- .80 2 .13-6 .82 260 8,192-26,214
Industrial Park 56 .4 .35 max .86 590 1,458
Industrial Park/ Campus Office 0 .25- .35 0 425 0
Campus Office 137.58 .25- .80 1.50-4.79 260 5,763-18,440
Medical Campus 42.88 .25- .80 .46-4.49 260 1,796-5,747
Medical Campus / Commercial 15.85 .25- .80 .17-.41 510 338-812
TOTAL: 853.2 9.09 -29.76 26,714 -77,605
5
PUBLIC/SEMI- PUBLIC/OPEN SPACE
Acres Floor Area Ratio (Gross) Square Feet (millions) Square Feet/ Employee Jobs
Public/Semi-Public 94.5 .50 max 2 .16 590 3,488
Semi-Public 1.3 .50 max .03 590 48
Acres Number
Parks/Public Recreation 207.13
Regional Parks 1 .2 1
Open Space 699 .56
Schools Acres Floor Area Ratio (Gross) Square Feet (millions) Square Feet/ Employee Jobs
Elementary School 38 .50 max 1 .06 590 1,797
Middle School 27 .8 .50 max .61 590 1,034
High School 0
TOTAL: 1,069.49 4.86 6,367
Acres Dwelling Units Population Square Feet
(millions) Jobs
GRAND TOTAL: 3,629.74 6,500-15,189+ 17,552 -41,010+ 9.16 -29.42 33,081-83,972
Figure 3-1 (Dublin General Plan Parks and Open Space Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan
Street south of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the Project site.
Figure 4-1 (Dublin General Plan Schools and Public Lands Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan
Street south of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the Project site.
Figure 5-1 (Dublin General Plan Roadway Classifications) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street
south of Dublin Boulevard as a Collector Street and removal of Northside Drive through the Project
site.
Table 5.1 (Roadway Improvements at General Plan Buildout (Year 2035)) shall be amended to modify
Tassajara Road and add Dublin Boulevard as follows with text that is proposed to be deleted from the
General Plan shown in strikethrough and text that is proposed to be added to the General Plan shown
in underline:
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT DESCRIPTION
Tassajara Road Widening Widening of Tassajara Road to eight seven lanes between
Dublin Boulevard and I-580 westbound ramps.
Dublin Boulevard Widening Widening of Dublin Boulevard to seven lanes between
Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street
Figure 5-2a (Dublin General Plan Transit Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street south of
Dublin Boulevard as a Collector Street and removal of Northside Drive through the Project site.
6
Figure 5-3b (Dublin General Plan Bicycle Circulation Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan
Street south of Dublin Boulevard as a Collector Street and removal of Northside Drive through the
Project site.
Figure 5-4b (Dublin General Plan Multi-Modal Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street south
of Dublin Boulevard as a Collector Street and removal of Northside Drive through the Project site.
Figure 8-1 (Dublin General Plan Geologic Hazards and Constraints Map) shall be amended to show
Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the Project site.
Figure 8-2 (Dublin General Plan Potential Flooding Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street
south of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the Project site.
Figure 9-1 (Dublin General Plan 2011 Existing Noise Exposure Contours Map) shall be amended to
show Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the Project
site.
Figure 9-2 (Dublin General Plan 2035 Projected Noise Exposure Contours Map) shall be amended to
show Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the Project
site.
Figure 10-1 (Dublin General Plan Regional Corridors Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan
Street south of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the Project site.
Figure 10-2 (Dublin General Plan Gateways Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street south
of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the Project site.
Figure 10-5 (Dublin General Plan Villages Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street south of
Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the Project site.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following
amendments to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan:
Figure 2.4 Ownership Patterns shall be amended to update the land ownership of 18. Dublin Land
Company to SCS Development Company
Table 4.1 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary) shall be amended to read as follows with
no modifications to the footnotes:
TABLE 4.1
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE SUMMARY
(Amendment Reso# 66-03, 47-04, 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 210-08, 176-09, 76-10, 55-12, 92-12, 210-12, 198-13, 159-14, 101-
15, 165-15, 151-16, xx-20)
Land Use Description LAND AREA DENSITY YIELD
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
General Commercial 296.5 acres .25-.35 FAR 3.87 MSF
General Commercial/Campus
Office
87.02 acres .28 FAR 1.054 MSF
Industrial Park* 61.3 acres .25-.28 FAR .747 MSF
Neighborhood Commercial 54.19 acres .30-.35 FAR .767 MSF
Mixed Use 23.7 acres .30-1.0 FAR .773 MSF
7
Mixed Use 2/Campus Office**** 25.33 .45 FAR .497 MSF
Campus Office 94.28 acres .35-.75 FAR 1.840 MSF
Medical Campus 42.88 acres .25-.80 FAR .950 MSF
Medical Campus/Commercial 15.85 acres .25-.60 FAR .250 MSF
Subtotal 716.45 acres 10.748 MSF
RESIDENTIAL
High Density 55.54 acres 35 du/ac 1,944 du
Medium High Density 151.31 acres 20 du/ac 3,026 du
Medium Density** 522.11 acres (1) 10 du/ac 5,221 du
Single Family*** 971.05 acres 4 du/ac 3,884.2 du (3)
Estate Residential 30.4 acres 0.13 du/ac 4 du
Rural Residential/Agric. 539.55 acres .01 du/ac 5 du
Mixed Use 0 acres 15du/ac 240 du
Subtotal 2,269.82 acres 14,324 du
PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC
Public/Semi-Public 96.8 acres .24 FAR .973 MSF
Semi-Public 8.6 acres .25 FAR .114 MSF
Subtotal 105.4 acres 1.087 MSF
SCHOOLS
Elementary School 55.8 acres (2) 5 schools
Junior High School 21.3 acres 1 school
Subtotal 77.1 acres
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
City Park 56.3 acres 1 park
Community Park 93.3 acres 3 parks
Neighborhood Park 50.9 acres 7 parks
Neighborhood Square 16.7 acres 6 parks
Natural Community Park 10.4 acres 1 park
Subtotal 227.6 acres 18 parks
Open Space 684.06 acres
TOTAL LAND AREA 4,034.77 acres
Table 4.2 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Population and Employment Summary) shall be amended to
read as follows with no modifications to the footnotes:
TABLE 4.2
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY
(Amended Per Resolution No. 47-04, 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 176-09, 76-10, 55-12, 92-12, 210-12, 198-13, 159-14, 165-15, 151-
16, xx-20)
Land Use Designation Development Sq Ft/Employees Persons/du Population
Commercial
Industrial Park .747 MSF 590 1,266
General
Commercial/Campus
Office*
1.054 MSF 385 2,738
General Commercial 3.87 MSF 510 6,567
Neighborhood Commercial .767 MSF 490 1,565
Mixed Use** .436 MSF 490 1,369
Mixed Use 2/Campus
Office****
.497 MSF 260 1,910
Campus Office 1.840 MSF 260 7,077
8
Table 4.3 (City of Dublin Projected Jobs/Housing Balance) shall be amended to read as follows with
no modifications to the footnotes:
TABLE 4.3
CITY OF DUBLIN
PROJECTED JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE
(Amended Per Resolution No. 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 76-10, 55-12, 92-12, 210-12, 198-13, 159-14, xx-20)
PLANNING AREA Dwelling
Units
Jobs Employed
Residents*
Balance**
Ratio***
Existing City of
Dublin****
7,100 12,210 11,502 -708 1.06:1.0
Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Area
14,572***** 24,451 23,607 -844 1.04:1.0
TOTAL: 21,672 36,661 35,109 -1,552 1.04:1.0******
Table 4.4 (Tassajara Gateway Subarea Development Potential) shall be amended as follows:
TABLE 4.4
TASSAJARA GATEWAY
SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
(Amended Per Resolution No. 76-10, 151-16, xx-20)
Designation Acres Density Development Potential
General Commercial 29 .25 FAR .316 msf
General Commercial/Campus
Office
10.5 .28 FAR .128 msf
Campus Office 33.28 .35 FAR .507msf
Medical Campus/Commercial 15.85 .36 FAR .249 msf
Mixed Use 23.7 .65 FAR .671 msf
Open Space 6.9 ----- -----
Semi Public ---- ---- 0
TOTAL 122.83 ----- 1.973 msf
Medical Campus .950 260 3,654
Medical Campus/
Commercial
.250 510 490
Public/Semi Public .973 MSF 590 1,656
Semi-Public 0.94 MSF 590 159
TOTAL: 12.324 MSF 24,451
Residential
High Density 1,944 2.0 3,888
Medium High Density 3,274 2.0 6,548
Medium Density 5,221 2.0 10,442
Single Family***(1) 3,884 3.2 12,423
Estate Residential 4 3.2 13
Mixed Use** 240 2.0 480
Rural Residential/Agric. 5 3.2 16
TOTAL: 14,572 33,810
9
Section 4.4.1 (Location and Diversity) shall be amended to update the acres of residential
classification and dwelling units as follows:
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designates 2,225.26 acres with a wide range of residential
classifications and densities, resulting in development potential for approximately 14,572 dwelling
units. Approximately 55 percent of the units will be single family (densities of 0.01 to 10 du/ac).
Table 4.5 (Town-Center-Commercial Subarea Development Potential) shall be amended as follows:
Table 4.6 (Town Center-Residential Subarea Development Potential) shall be amended as follows:
TABLE 4.6
TOWN CENTER-- RESIDENTIAL
SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
Designation Acres Density Development Potential
High Density 30.4 35 du/ac 1,064 du
Medium High Density 39.6 20 du/ac 792 du
Medium Density 206.2 10 du/ac 2,062 du
Single Family 114.2 4 du/ac 456 du
Subtotal 390.4 --- 4,374 du
Open Space 49.8 ---
City Park 56.3 --- 1 park
Community Park 80.6 --- 1 park
Neighborhood Park 11.6 --- 2 parks
Neighborhood Square 7.5 --- 5 parks
Nature Park 10.4 --- 1 park
Semi-Public --- --- 0 msf
Subtotal 216.2 ---
Elementary School 31.1 --- 3 schools
TOTAL 606.6 --- 43,674 dwelling units
10 parks
3 elementary schools
Figure 4.1 (Land Use Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard as
a Collector Street and remove Northside Drive through the Project site and shall be amended with new
TABLE 4.5
TOWN CENTER -- COMMERCIAL
SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
(Amended Per Resolution No. 47-04, xx-20)
Designation Acres Density Development Potential
General Commercial 32.4 .35 FAR .494 msf
Neighborhood Commercial 28.0 .35 FAR .427 msf
Public/Semi-Public 3.9 .25 FAR .043 msf
Semi-Public -- -- 0 msf
TOTAL 64.3 --- 1.064 msf
10
land use designations for the Project site as noted below.
Figure 4.2 (Planning Subareas Map) shall be amended as shown on the image below as follows:
1) Modify to the boundary of Tassajara Gateway Subarea
(Area A) to include the 1.2-acre parcel (Assessor’s
Parcel Number 985-0051-004-00 shown in green)
located east of Tassajara Road and west of Northside
Drive included into Tassajara Gateway subarea
2) Modify the boundary of Town Center-Residential (Area
C) (shown in orange) to occupy the entirety of the
Project site north of Dublin Boulevard.
3) Modify the boundary of Town Center-Commercial (Area
B) to coincide with the western and eastern boundary of
the new boundary of Town Center-Residential (Area C).
4) Show Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard as a
Collector Street and remove Northside Drive through
the Project site
Figure 5.1 (Road System Map) shall be amended to show Tassajara Road between Dublin Boulevard
and I-580 ramps to be seven lanes and Dublin Boulevard between Tassajara Road and Brannigan
Street to be seven lanes.
Figure 5-3b (East Dublin Bicycle Circulation System Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street
south of Dublin Boulevard and remove Northside Drive through the Project site
APPENDIX 3
Land Use Summary by Planning Areas sections “Tassajara Gateway”, “Town Center-Commercial”,
and “Town Center-Residential” shall be amended as follows:
APPENDIX 3
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE SUMMARY BY PLANNING SUBAREAS
Planning Subareas
Land Use Category Area Density Square Feet Units
Tassajara Gateway
General Commercial 29 .25 315,810
11
General Commercial/ Campus
Office 10.5 0.28 128,066
Campus Office 33.28 .35 507,387
Medical Campus/ Commercial 15.85 .36 248,553
Mixed Use 23.7 .65 671,042 240
Open Space 6.9
Total 119.23 1,870,858 240
Town Center - Commercial
General Commercial 32.4 .35 193,970
Neighborhood Commercial 28.0 .35 426,888
Public/Semi-Public 3.9 .25 42,471
Total 64.3 663,329
Town Center – Residential
High Density Residential 30.4 35 1,064
Medium High Density
Residential 53.3 20 1,066
Medium Density Residential 206.2 10 2,062
Single Family Residential 114.2 4 456
Subtotal 381.1 4,374
Open Space 49.8
City Park 56.3
Community Park 80.6
Neighborhood Park 11.6
Neighborhood Square 7.5
Nature Community Park 10.4
Subtotal 216.2
Elementary School 31.1
Total 606.6 4,614
APPENDIX 4
Appendix 4 Land Use Summary by Land Owners “#18 Dublin Land Company” shall be amended to
read as follows:
APPENDIX 4
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE SUMMARY BY LAND OWNERS
Owner/Land Use Category Acres Density Square Feet Units
#18 SCS DEVELOPMENT CO.
12
Mixed Use 23.7 .30 – 1.00
309,712 –
1,032,372 240
Medium Density Residential 29.4 6.1 – 14.0 - 179-412
Single Family Residential 23.8 .9 – 6.0 - 24-143
Total 76.9
309,712 –
1,032,372 443-795
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of June, 2020 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
1
ORDINANCE NO. xx – 20
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING
DISTRICT WITH RELATED A STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
AT DUBLIN PROJECT
PLPA 2017-00061
(APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, and 985-0052-025)
The Dublin City Council does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. RECITALS
A. The Applicant, Shea Properties in partnership with SCS Development Company , is
requesting Planned Development Rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development
Plan. The proposed Project includes up to 566 residential units comprised of apartments,
detached single-family homes and 55 and older age restricted single-family homes, up to
240,000 square feet of retail commercial development, and related infrastructure and
landscape improvements. Requested land use approvals include General Plan
Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development
Rezoning (Stage 1 and Stage 2), Vesting Tentative Map Nos. 8440, 8449 and 8452, a
Street Vacation, and a Development Agreement, among other related actions. These
planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the “At Dublin Project” or the
“Project;” and
B. The Project site is approximately 76.9 acres generally bounded by Tassajara Road,
Gleason Drive, Brannigan Street and I-580 (APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-
0051-006, 985-0052-024, and 985-0052-025); and
C. The Project site is located within the Dublin Town Center Priority Development Area (PDA)
which includes a mix of housing types including single-family detached, townhomes,
condominiums and apartments. The Town Center PDA is envisioned as a walkable area
with locally serving businesses within walking distance or a short ride from residential
neighborhoods, conveniently served by transit; and
D. Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City
prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated July 2018, a Final EIR dated
October 2018, and an Errata dated January 2020, for the proposed Project, which reflected
the City’s independent judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the
Project; and
E. The Draft EIR identified potentially significant environmental effects anticipated as a result
of the Project such as, aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal
resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and transportation,
most of which can be substantially reduced through mitigation measures; and
F. The Draft EIR was circulated for 45 days for public comment from July 6, 2018 to August
20, 2018. Comments received on the Draft EIR were reviewed and responded to, and the
2
Final EIR (that contains the Response to Comments) dated October 2018 was prepared;
and
G.Following a public hearing on October 30, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 18-24, recommending denial of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendments and the entirety of the Project, consisting of up to 665
residential units comprised of apartments, townhomes and detached small-lot single family
homes and up to 400,500 square feet of commercial development, related infrastructure, a
public park and landscape improvements, which resolution is incorporated herein by
reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and
H.On November 20, 2018, following a request from the Applicant, the City Council continued
the Project to an undetermined future date; and
I.In October 2019, the Applicant submitted a revised Project in response to public
comments, consisting of up to 566 residential units comprised of apartments, detached
small-lot single-family homes and 55 and older age restricted single-family homes, up to
240,000 square feet of retail commercial development, and related infrastructure and
landscape improvements; and
J.Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, the City analyzed the revised Project and
determined that there was no new significant information, or substantially more severe,
significant environmental impact as a result of the revised Project, requiring recirculation of
the EIR; and
K.Following a public hearing on February 25, 2020, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 20-05, recommending denial of the proposed amendments to the General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the At Dublin project based on traffic impacts,
pedestrian and bicycle concerns, and the Project’s inconsistency with the longstanding
vision for these parcels, namely less housing and more commercial/retail serving as a
“town center” and “gateway to the city” with a walkable environment, which resolution is
incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal
business hours; and
L.A Staff Report dated June 16, 2020 and incorporated herein by reference, described
and analyzed the Project, including the Planned Development Rezoning and related
Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, for the City Council; and
M.The City Council considered the Final EIR and related prior CEQA documents, including an
Errata prepared for the revised Project, and all above referenced reports,
recommendations, and testimony prior to taking action on the Project; and
N.On June 16, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. xx-20 certifying the Final
EIR and adopting mitigation findings, findings regarding alternatives, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the
Project; and
O.On June 16, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. xx-20 approving General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, which resolution is incorporated
herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours.
3
SECTION 2: FINDINGS
A.Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as
follows.
1.The At Dublin Project (“the Project”) PD-Planned Development zoning meets the
purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 in that it provides a comprehensive development
plan that will be consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as
amended and protects the integrity and character of the area by creating a desirable
use of land that is sensitive to surrounding land uses by virtue of the layout and
design of the site plan. The Project places residents and employment uses in areas
planned for such uses, which promote preservation of sensitive environmenta l areas,
throughout the City. The development plan focuses commercial uses south of Dublin
Boulevard adjacent to I-580 and provides for a variety of housing opportunities, north
of Dublin Boulevard adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods. As a result, the
development plan creates a more desirable use of the land, a more coherent and
coordinated development, and a better physical environment than would otherwise be
possible under a single zoning district or combination of zoning districts.
2.Development of the Project under the PD-Planned Development zoning will be
harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding
area in that the site will provide a mix of housing types including apartments, single-
family detached homes and single-family duplexes as well as a variety of
neighborhood and regional-serving commercial uses. The Project site is in an area
that has similar uses nearby including residential uses to the west, north and east,
commercial to the east and west, and a large public park to the west.
B.Pursuant to Sections 8.120.050.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council
finds as follows.
1.The PD-Planned Development zoning for the Project will be harmonious and
compatible with existing and potential development in the surrounding area in that the
proposed Site Plan has taken into account adjacent land uses and will provide a wide
range of amenities to and for the community within the development and the
surrounding neighborhoods.
2.The Project site conditions were documented in the EIR that has been prepared, and
the environmental impacts that have been identified will be mitigated to the greatest
degree possible. There are no site challenges that were identified in the EIR, which
could not be mitigated, that will present an impediment to utilization of the site for the
intended purposes. There are no major physical or topographic constraints and, thus,
the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the retail commercial center
and residential uses approved through the PD zoning.
3.The PD-Planned Development zoning will not adversely affect the health or safety of
persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare in that the Project will comply with all applicable development
regulations and standards and will implement all adopted mitigation measures.
4
4.The PD-Planned Development zoning is consistent with and in conformance with the
Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as amended, in that the
proposed uses of residential and commercial retail are consistent with the proposed
residential and mixed-use land use designations for the site.
C.Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council certified a Final EIR
via Resolution No. xx-20 on June 16, 2020, prior to approving the Project.
SECTION 3: ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code the City of Dublin Zoning
Map is amended to rezone the property described below to a Planned Development Zoning
District and supersedes and replaces the previously adopted zoning (Resolution No. 104-94):
76.9 acres bounded by Tassajara Road on the west, by Brannigan Street on the east, by
I-580 on the south, and by a line approximately 150 feet north of Gleason Drive, primarily
comprised of the following Assessor Parcel Numbers: 985-52-24, 985-52-25 and 985-51-
6 (the “Property”)
A map of the rezoning area is shown below:
SECTION 4. APPROVAL OF STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Property are
set forth in the following Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the entire 77.3-acre project
area, which is hereby approved. Any amendments to the Stage 1/Stage 2 Development Plan
shall be in accordance with Section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code or its successors.
Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan
This is a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance. This Development Plan meets all the requirements for both a Stage 1 and Stage 2
5
Development Plan and is adopted as part of the PD-Planned Development rezoning for the At
Dublin Project (PLPA-2017-00061).
The PD-Planned Development District and this Stage 1/Stage 2 Development Plan provides
flexibility to encourage innovative development while ensuring that the goals, policies, and
action programs of the General Plan and provisions of Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance
are satisfied.
The PD-Planned Development is divided into four Planning Areas (PA-1, PA-2, PA-3 and PA-4).
A map of the Planning Areas and subareas is shown below:
PLANNING AREA 1 (PA-1)
1. Statement of Uses (as defined by the Zoning Ordinance).
Permitted Uses1:
1. Animal Sales and Services
2. Arcade, accessory to primary use
3. Automobile/Vehicle Brokerage
4. Banks and Financial Services
5. Billiard/Pool Hall, accessory to primary use
6. Building Materials Sales
7. Copying and Blueprinting
8. Dance Floor
9. Eating and Drinking Establishment
10. Eating and Drinking Establishment – Specialty
11. Eating and Drinking Establishment – Take Out
12. Health Club/Fitness Center
13. Health Services/Clinics
14. Hotel/Motel
15. Laboratory
16. Massage Establishment
17. Mobile Food Truck2
18. Mobile Retail Cart3
19. Multi-Family Residential
20. Office – Professional/Administrative
21. Outdoor Sale by Established On-site Business
6
22. Outdoor Seating
23. Outdoor Permanent Vendor
24. Personal Services
25. Plant Nursery
26. Recording Studio
27. Recreational Facility/Indoor and Outdoor
28. Retail – General
29. Retail Kiosk4
30. Retail – Neighborhood
31. Retail – Outdoor Storage
32. Retail – Service
33. Service Station
34. School – Commercial
35. Theater
36. Tobacco Retailer
Conditionally Permitted Uses:
1. Animal Hospital, Veterinarian
2. Car Wash/Detailing (Zoning Administrator Approval)
3. Comedy Club
4. Community Facility (Zoning Administrator Approval)
5. Drive-In/Drive-Through Business
6. Nightclub
7. Repair Shop
Temporary Uses5:
1. Arts and Crafts Fair
2. Christmas Tree Sales Lot
3. Construction-Related Temporary Uses
4. Farmers’ Market
5. Festival/Street Fair
6. Office – Trailer Commercial
7. Pumpkin Sales Lot
8. Outdoor Event by an Established Business6
9. Outdoor Sale Not Related to On-Site Established Business6
Notes:
1. A Zoning Clearance is required for those uses which are subject to a Zoning
Clearance by the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Mobile Food Truck use shall comply with the following:
a. A Site Development Review Waiver approving the location of a food truck is
required. Applications for multiple food trucks may be combined into one Site
Development Review Waiver application. The application shall include a site plan
demonstrating compliance with the following:
1. The location of a mobile food vendor is limited to the parking area and shall
not be located within a pedestrian plaza or public right-of-way.
7
2. The area used for all mobile food truck operations, including but not limited to
customer queuing, trash, and dining, shall not impede the traffic visibility area
at any driveway or intersection, emergency access, pedestrian and vehicular
ingress or egress through the remainder of the parking, or the adjacent public
right of way.
3. The area used for all mobile food truck operations, including but not limited to
customer queuing, trash, and dining, shall not occupy more than 25 percent of
the parking area.
4. If more than one mobile food vendor is on the site at one time, they shall be
located within the same vicinity, not more than 25 feet apart.
b. In addition to the Site Development Review Waiver, the following operational
standards apply:
1. Hours of Operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily.
2. The food truck must be stationary for a minimum of two (2) hours. No trolling
allowed.
3. Provision of at least one trash receptacle, one recycling receptacle and one
compost receptacle for use by patrons and in a convenient location that does
not impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic.
4. Collection and removal of all litter and debris generated within a minimum 25-
foot radius of the food truck.
5. No signs other than those exhibited on or in the mobile food truck.
6. Adequate lighting must be provided to ensure customer safety and shall be
directed downwards and away from public streets and adjacent properties.
7. Maintenance of a valid business license from the City of Dublin.
8. Maintenance of a valid health permit from the Alameda County Department of
Environmental Health.
3. Mobile Retail Cart. This includes small outdoor retail carts for the sale of any type of
merchandise not constructed on a permanent foundation. The location is limited to the
plaza areas. Up to a maximum of five carts are permitted.
4. Retail Kiosk. This is a fixed structure constructed on a permanent foundation for the
sale of any type of merchandise, including food and beverages. The location is limited
to the interior plaza area and approved subject to Site Development Review Waiver.
Up to a maximum of five kiosks are permitted.
5. Subject to the Temporary Use Permit standards of the Zoning Ordinance
6. Outdoor Event by an Established Business and an Outdoor Sale Not Related to On-
Site Established Business shall be limited to a maximum of 4 consecutive days, with a
maximum of 4 such events during a calendar year.
2. Development Regulations.
Standard PA 1
Minimum Lot Area None
Minimum Lot Width/Frontage None
Minimum Lot Depth None
8
Standard PA 1
Maximum Residential Units 240
Maximum Building Height 74 ft.
Maximum Floor Area Ratio 0.5
Maximum Building Area1, 2, 3, 4 500,000 s.f.
Setbacks Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.36
Development Regulations unless otherwise noted
Minimum Setback
10 ft. at Dublin Blvd., Tassajara Rd. and Brannigan St.
15 ft. at I-580 Right of Way
5 ft. at Private Drives
Required Parking5
Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.76 Off-
Street Parking and Loading Regulations unless
otherwise noted below.
Residential 1.75 spaces /unit
(Includes guest parking)
Signage Pursuant to an approved Master Sign Program
1. Mixed-use building area includes commercial and multi-family apartment square footage. Maximum
non-residential square footage is 240,000 square feet.
2. The 240,000 square feet of non-residential includes one hotel with a total of 75,000 square feet and
a maximum of 155 rooms
3. Square footage for enclosed trash rooms or building electrical rooms shall not be counted toward
the maximum building area.
4. Outdoor Mobile Vendors (i.e., retail kiosks and carts) are not included in the maximum building
area.
5. So long as they comply with the development standards in the notes above, no parking is required
for Mobile Food Trucks, Mobile Retail Carts, Retail Kiosks, and undesignated outdoor seating
located in common areas for informal seating and dining.
PLANNING AREA 2 (PA-2)
1. Statement of Uses PA-2 (as defined by the Zoning Ordinance).
Permitted Uses:
1. Multi-Family Residential
2. Single-Family Residential
Conditionally Permitted Uses:
1. Animal Day Care (restricted to Household Pets)
Temporary Uses1:
1. Construction-Related Temporary Uses
2. Tract and Sales Office/Model Home Complex
Notes:
1. Subject to the Temporary Use Permit standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
9
2. Development Regulations Planning Area 2 (PA-2).
Standard PA-2 | Single Family Detached / Duplex
Minimum Lot Area None
Minimum Lot Width/Frontage None
Minimum Lot Depth None
Maximum Building Height 35 ft.
2 stories
Maximum Residential Units 196
Maximum Density 6.7 du/ac
Minimum Setbacks1
Front
Living Area 14 ft. from center of alley
Porch/Deck 2 ft.
Garage 4 ft.
Encroachments 2 2 ft. max. into required setback
Side
Corner Lot– Living Area 8 ft.
Corner Lot -
Porch/Deck 1 ft.
Interior
(Single Family Detached) 5 ft.
Interior
(Duplex)
0 ft. on attached side
5 ft on detached side
Encroachments 2 2 ft. max. into required setback
Rear Living Area 5 ft.
Encroachments 2 2 ft. max. into required setback
Minimum Building Separation
Garage to Garage 28 ft.
Building to Building 10 ft.
(not including attached units)
Encroachments 2 2 ft. max. into required setback
Required Parking 2 spaces covered/unit
Guest Parking
1 space/unit
On-street parking can be counted toward
the number of required guest spaces
1. Setbacks are measured from property line; except as noted where it is measured from center of alley
2. Encroachments may include window bays, chimneys, and other architectural projections.
PLANNING AREA 3 and 4 (PA-3 and PA-4)
1. Statement of Uses (as defined by the Zoning Ordinance).
10
Permitted Uses:
1. Single-Family Residential
2. Community Care Facility/Small
Conditionally Permitted Uses:
1. Animal Day Care (restricted to Household Pets)
2. Bed and Breakfast Inn
Temporary Uses1:
1. Construction-Related Temporary Uses
2. Tract and Sales Office/Model Home Complex
Notes:
1. Subject to the Temporary Use Permit standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Development Regulations – Planning Area 3 (PA-3)
Standard PA 3
Single Family Detached
Minimum Lot Area 4,000 s.f.
Minimum Lot Width 50 ft.
Minimum Lot Depth 80 ft.
Maximum Building Height 35 ft.
2 stories
Maximum Residential Units 115
Maximum Density 5.56 du/ac
Minimum Setbacks1
Front
Living Area 10 ft.
Porch/Deck 10 ft.
Garage Door 18 ft.
Encroachments 2 2 ft. max. into required setback
Side
Living Area 5 ft.
Corner Lot-Living Area 8 ft.
Porch/Deck 5 ft.
Corner Lot – Porch/Deck 5 ft.
Encroachments 2 2 ft. max. into required setback
Rear Living Area 10 ft.
Encroachments 2 2 ft. max into required setback
Usable Private Yard Space 200 s.f. min.
10 ft. min. dimension
Required Parking 2 spaces covered/unit
Guest Parking
1 space/unit
On-street parking can be counted
toward the number of required
guest spaces
1. Setbacks are measured from property line.
2. Encroachments may include window bays, chimneys, and other architectural projections.
11
3. Development Regulations – Planning Area 4 (PA-4)
Standard PA 4
Single Family Detached
Minimum Lot Area 2,000 s.f.
Minimum Lot Width 40 ft.
Minimum Lot Depth 40 ft.
Maximum Building Height 35 ft.
2 stories
Maximum Residential Units 15
Maximum Density 4.8 du/ac
Minimum Setbacks1
Front
Living Area 2 ft.
Porch/Deck 2 ft.
Garage Door 5 ft.
Encroachments 2 2 ft. max. into required setback
Side
Interior 4 ft.
Corner 4 ft.
Encroachments 2 2 ft. max. into required setback
Rear Living Area 6 ft.
Encroachments 2 2 ft. max. into required setback
Usable Private Yard Space 200 s.f. min.
10 ft. min. dimension
Required Parking 2 spaces covered/unit
Guest Parking 1 space/unit
1. Setbacks are measured from property line.
2. Encroachments may include window bays, chimneys, and other architectural projections.
PLANNING AREAS - ALL
1. Phasing Plan. The Project is to be constructed in two phases. Phase 1 is comprised of
PA-2 and the north half of PA-1. Phase 2 includes the south half of PA-1 and all of PA-3
and PA-4. Although the Project is divided into different phases, it is anticipated that these
phases will overlap with most of the construction happening concurrently.
To ensure that the residential portions of the Project do not wholly develop in advance of
the retail/commercial portions, the following restriction is imposed on the issuance of
permits:
o No building permits shall be issued for development on PA-3 or PA-4 until the
improvement plans for Phase 1 and/or Phase 2 in PA-1 have been approved and
bonds posted.
12
2. General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Consistency. The Project is
consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as amended by the
Project. The land use designations for the Project site is Mixed-Use for PA-1, Medium
Density Residential for PA-2 and Single-Family Residential for PA-3 and PA-4. The
development permitted by the proposed zoning for each PA is consistent with that PA’s
land use designation. The Mixed-Use land use designation permits FARs ranging from
0.30 to 1.0, and the Project would permit development at a FAR of 0.5 in the area (PA-1)
with this designation. The Medium Density land use designation permits up to 10 dwelling
units per acre and the Project would permit residential uses at 6.7 dwelling units per acre
in the area (PA-2) with this designation. The Single-Family Residential land use
designation allows up to six dwelling units per acre and the Project would permit
residential uses at 5.6 and 4.8 dwelling units per acre, respectively, in the areas (PA-3
and PA-4) with this designation.
3. Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. The Project is subject to the Inclusionary Zoning
Regulations (Chapter 8.68) for the provision of affordable housing as a residential
development of 20 units or more. The City’s Regulations also allow for exceptions
commonly referred to as an “alternative method of compliance.” These exceptions
include the payment of fees in lieu of constructing affordable units, construction of off-site
housing projects, land dedication, etc.
The Project includes 566 units, of which 71 units are required to be designated as
affordable units.
4. Aerial Photo.
13
5. Site Plan.
6. Architectural Standards.
The architecture of the development is characterized by clean, simple lines, reminiscent of a
farmhouse or barn, and using natural materials and a classic color palette. Buildings are
designed and situated to create a blend of formal and casual spaces across the site. The
Project’s materials, landscapes and architecture are subtle reflections of farm life, and are
guided by the concept of “modern agrarian,” taking inspiration from Dublin’s agricultural past
and California’s wine regions.
The architectural design shall reflect the following standards:
• Employ high quality materials to provide visual interest in the Project and to
complement its surroundings.
• Use diversity of textures in the building finishes providing a varied and interesting
base form for the buildings.
• Incorporate features such as different wall planes, heights, wall textures, roof
elements, roof forms, light fixtures and landscaping to contribute layers of detail at
the pedestrian level.
• Architectural details shall extend around all sides of building, including rear
elevations when visible to perimeter public streets.
Additionally, taking cues from these early California agrarian influences and from iconic mid-
century modern designs that are prevalent in the Bay Area, the introduction of a purely
modern aesthetic will tie together regional inspirations of architecture with today’s lifestyle.
Illustrative examples of single-family residential architecture.
14
Illustrative examples of multi-family residential architecture.
Illustrative example of commercial architecture.
15
Residential (PA-1, 2, 3 and 4)
The goal of the residential architecture is to complement that of the commercial area and
provide design continuity within the Project as a whole. The objective of the following criteria
is to allow flexibility within each Planning Area while maintaining a cohesive design theme
throughout the Project. The architecture design shall employ a variety of colors and high-
quality materials.
Modifications to Residential
Modifications to the architecture and layout shall be approved administratively by the
Community Development Director or designee with the following parameters:
1. Consistent with the architectural standards as provided above.
2. Consistent with the approved scale of the buildings.
3. The modification does not significantly alter the roofline.
4. The proposed design is consistent with the architectural identity of the
development.
Commercial (PA-1)
Planning Area 1 (PA-1) is characterized by a mix of building footprint sizes including a hotel,
movie theater, residential apartment building, various retail typologies and centrally located
plaza. PA-1 contains the Tassajara Gateway plaza, which is located at the intersection of
Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road.
Tassajara Gateway Design
The commercial area is located in the Tassajara Gateway of the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan. Buildings along Tassajara Road, especially those closest to I-580, will contribute
significantly to the look and feel of the Tassajara Gateway. Emphasis should be placed on
design of these buildings, which shall include high quality architectural features and the
screening of less desirable uses, which will contribute to the creation of a distinctive
"gateway" image at the Tassajara Road entrance to eastern Dublin
The goal of the architecture in the commercial areas is promote distinct storefronts and
interesting architecture facing the public rights-of-way. The objective of the following design
criteria is to allow the maximum expression of a store’s individual personality and character
while maintaining a cohesive design theme throughout the Project. The architecture design
shall employ a variety of colors and high-quality materials so that the buildings make a
16
statement on their own. The commercial buildings include a mix of single tenant and multi-
tenant buildings. In both cases, the tenant overlay may include awnings, canopies, lighting
and patios. Tenants may also elect to upgrade the storefronts and may even modify or
upgrade significant portions of the façade. The Tenant Design Criteria below defines
allowable and prohibited criteria for all these tenant elements.
Tenant Design Criteria:
Tenant Entries
Tenants are required to use swinging entrance doors for their primary entry. Overhead rolling
doors, air curtains, and other full-width storefront closure systems may be permitted, subject
to City approval, at certain tenant locations. Tenants may employ multiple swinging entrance
doors to provide a greater degree of openness to the storefront. Restaurants with outdoor
seating, or tenants with a regular exterior sales display area, such as a garden center, are
permitted to have secondary doors that extend the width of their exterior presence provided
that these secondary doors are in keeping with the quality and character of the Project, such
as “Nanawall” type enclosures or glazed “garage” type doors.
Doors shall be constructed of wood, steel, or high-quality aluminum. Door hardware shall be
of a consistent finish and selected to complement the overall storefront character. All doors
must have thresholds and door sweeps integrated into their design. Tall entry doors of eight
feet minimum are required; higher doors are encouraged.
Storefront Materials
Tenant storefront materials and colors shall be carefully selected to achieve an overall built
form that accentuates the uniqueness of individual tenants and adds to the fabric of the
street. Materials should be high quality, non-corrosive, exterior rated, and should suit the
local environment. Careful attention to the detailing or joinery of differing materials is
required. A carefully defined edge must be established between different materials and
surfaces on the storefront as well as between the tenant and landlord finishes.
Tenant storefront design may not consist of glazing only. However, tenants may elect to
enhance the landlord-provided storefront system (glazing).
Materials and colors should highlight and reinforce unique forms with a facade or storefront,
such as base and corner elements, entrances, and other features. Sustainable and recycled
materials are highly encouraged. Permitted materials include brick, cast-in-place or precast
concrete, unitized ceramic panels, non-reflective metal panels, stone, wood, smooth stucco,
plaster, EIFS (exterior insulation and finish system), cement-fiber lap siding, and curtain wall
glazing systems forming an exterior wall system. Unique finishes such as rusted, etched, or
imprinted steel may be considered for special design objectives. Any plaster or stucco
finishes shall be used in combination with other higher visual quality materials such as stone,
wood, or metal and shall not dominate as the primary storefront material. Simulated woods,
such as a wood-finish tile or wood-finish high pressure laminates shall be considered on a
case-by-case basis. Any paint applied to materials of the tenant storefront must be clearly
specified. Paints shall be of a high quality for even, durable finishes. Painted gypsum is not
permitted on any exterior surface.
Tenants are encouraged to consider original and creative design approaches. Large portions
of tenant facades may be upgraded with tenant materials and expressions, but these should
17
be integrated into the building in a way that fits the overall project expression, for example by
including some of the landlord architecture materials.
Prohibited materials include: large areas or bulkheads of EIFS, rough stucco or stucco with
patterned finishes, “antiquing” through use of stains, varnishes, or other means, vinyl or
fabric wall coverings, mirror glass, plexiglass or other plastics, anodized aluminum finishes,
and smoked or tinted finishes. Landlord reserves the right to prohibit materials that clash with
the base building finishes.
Canopies and Awning Types
Tenant may opt to include an architectural canopy in storefront design. Fixed canopies must
maintain a minimum height of nine feet clear above grade and must be constructed of
appropriate exterior-rated materials, included glass, factory painted steel, stainless steel,
wood, or composite panels over an aluminum of steel frame. Canopies greater than three
feet in depth must incorporate recessed or sconce lighting into their design; if four feet or
greater, canopies must be fire-sprinklered.
Tenants are encouraged to provide metal or glass canopies over fabric awnings. Vinyl
awnings are not permitted.
Retail Tenants in Mixed-use building:
The retail tenants are located at the street level of the mixed-use building with residential
uses on the upper floors. Canopies or awnings are required to enhance the visibility of each
retailer. Canopies or awnings are required to protect the entry and at least 40 percent of the
width of the storefront. The tenant façade area is defined as the area between landlord
provided pilasters, the pavement, and up to a 15 feet vertical datum or height as otherwise
indicated on the multifamily shell drawings. Pilasters extend down from the upper levels at
fixed locations.
18
Overhangs/Overbuild
Overhangs are permitted in storefronts provided they are an integral part of the storefront
design and assuming they meet the setbacks. The underside of overhangs must be
articulated with architectural elements such as brackets, coffers, or exposed beam ends.
Seating and Accessories
No exterior accessories are allowed unless approved by the City and the landlord leasing
plan and included in leasing terms. If approved, exterior accessories must not impede or
restrict pedestrian or vehicular movement. Tenant must receive approval of all elements
placed outside of their lease line prior to their installation or placement. Tenant may be
allowed to accessorize their storefront through the addition of potted plants, tables and
chairs, benches, and other non-permanent and readily moveable elements in the area
immediately in front of the tenant’s storefront only if included in lease terms and approved in
advance of placement.
Accordingly, such accessories shall be the property of the tenant, subject to the terms of the
lease agreement, and maintained in a first-class manner. All exterior accessories shall align
with the aesthetic of the Project in quality and aesthetics and must be preapproved. Any
accessories left outside on a regular basis should be of a size and weight to discourage
theft. If accessories are chained together overnight for security, the cables and locks must be
discreet and fully removed during business hours.
19
Exterior Building Lighting
Tenants may not add or replace fixtures without prior approval. Any additional tenant lighting
should be integrated into the landlord architectural and lighting design without negatively
impacting surrounding land uses and the streetscape. Additional or replaced lighting should
integrate with retail signage, storefront windows, and other building elements to enhance
visual interest; this may include wall-wash lighting, wall sconces, and other innovative
lighting solutions. Light fixtures will complement the landlord lighting and the overall “modern
agrarian” project architecture and may include fixture types such as: gooseneck, RLM
(reflector light microscopy) lamping, or modern interpretations of the previous.
Exterior building lighting shall be commercial grade in quality and size and subject to
California Building Code Title 24.
All store entrance light levels must meet local code requirements. All exterior tenant lighting
shall remain lit for at least one hour after store closing, and as otherwise required by local
codes. The landlord may require any tenant exterior lighting to be placed on house lighting
circuits controlled by the landlord via a time clock. Manual switches for exterior lighting are
prohibited. All emergency and exit lighting provided by the tenant shall be provided with
emergency battery power back-up.
20
Exterior Illumination at Patios
Tenants may elect to incorporate additional lighting at covered and uncovered patio spaces.
The tenant’s lighting design at leased patio spaces may include overhead lights such as
catenary lighting or suspended luminaires, and directional lighting. Tenants may attach
lighting to landlord shade structures such as pergolas or overhead trellises, subject to
landlord and City approval.
Uniform flood lighting, strobe or spinner type lighting are prohibited.
Food Service – General Requirements
Food-service tenants are encouraged to utilize operable/retractable storefront windows such
as bi-fold or single-swing storefront windows to connect to outdoor dining patios and to
promote the Project concept of indoor/outdoor restaurants. Subject to landlord approval, food
service tenants may be permitted to alter or enhance the landlord facade (such as changing
21
building materials or modifying/adding openings) that support the theme of “farm to table,” or
the idea of bringing food and production forward.
Outdoor Dining
Food service tenants may be permitted to include outdoor seating in the area immediately in
front of their premises, provided that the seating area and any surrounding railing or
enclosure do not impede or restrict the required or desired pedestrian and vehicular
pathways. Railings must be artfully designed with decorative elements and an interesting
use of materials. Standard pickets or wire railings are not acceptable and all railings are
subject to approval. Allowable areas for outdoor seating and rental terms will be defined in
the Tenant’s Lease Agreement and will correspond to the overall patio plan approved for the
Project. Tables and chairs used in outdoor seating areas, including those under awnings or
canopies, must be rated for commercial outdoor use and approved. Umbrellas must be
closed or removed at night and shall be of sufficient weight and strength to avoid being
broken or uplifted by winds. The umbrella fabric must be flame retardant material in a color
approved. The minimum standard umbrella fabric is Sunbrella Firesist. Branded or logoed
umbrellas are prohibited. If tables and chairs are chained together overnight for security, the
cables and locks must be discreet and fully removed during business hours.
Outdoor Dining – Designing for Wind
In consideration of the windy conditions in Dublin, the design of the buildings shall consider
the direction of wind and utilize architecturally appropriate wind screens in outdoor dining
areas.
22
Modifications to Commercial (PA-1)
Modifications to the architecture, layout, depth and height of the buildings, which may alter
site circulation, in PA-1 shall be consistent with the Planned Development Zoning
Development Regulations and approved administratively by the Community Development
Director with the following parameters:
1. Consistent with the Tenant Design Criteria as provided above.
2. Consistent with the approved floor area ratio, and substantially conforms with the
scale of the buildings.
3. The modification does not significantly alter the roofline of the building.
4. The façade (all sides) of a single building does not exceed 120 linear feet, unless the
façade is designed and articulated to create the appearance of multiple storefronts
and/or individual building forms.
5. Large outdoor display and/or storage areas shall be integrated into the building’s
architecture.
7. Preliminary Landscape Plan.
The landscape design of the Project shall reflect the following standards. The landscape
design shall:
• Provide interpretive and educational components to enrich visitor’s experience on the
site.
23
•Treat the site’s storm water in a set of basins throughout the site that are linked to the
site’s water infrastructure, or for areas where regional treatment was previously
approved, treat the site’s stormwater in a regional stormwater treatment basin.
•Create a visual buffer and soften the edge between the public realm and the site.
•Utilize plants that provide a year-round vegetated landscape with seasonality, color,
and interest for an attractive visual environment.
8.Applicable Requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
Except as specifically provided in this Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, the use,
development, improvement and maintenance of the Property shall be governed by the
provision of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance pursuant to 8.32.060C or its successor. The
closest comparable zoning districts are as follows:
PA-1: C-2 (General Commercial Zoning District) for the commercial portion and
R-M (Multi-Family Residential Zoning District) for the residential portion.
PA-2: R-2 (Two Family Residential)
PA-3 and PA-4: R-1 (Single Family Residential)
9.Statement of Compatibility with Stage 1 Development Plan.
The Stage 2 portion of this Development Plan is consistent with the Stage 1 portion of this
Development Plan.
SECTION 5. POSTING OF ORDINANCE
The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3)
public spaces in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of
the State of California.
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days following its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this ___ day of
_______, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. xx-20
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE MAP NOS. 8440, 8449 AND 8452 FOR THE
AT DUBLIN PROJECT
PLPA 2017-00061
(APNS 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, AND 985-0052-025)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Shea Properties in partnership with SCS Development
Company, is requesting Vesting Tentative Maps for the At Dublin Project. The proposed Project
includes up to 566 residential units comprised of apartments, detached small-lot single-family
homes and 55 and older age restricted single-family homes, and up to 240,000 square feet of
retail commercial development, related infrastructure and landscape improvements. Requested
land use approvals include General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment, Planned Development Rezoning (Stage 1 and Stage 2), Vesting Tentative Map Nos.
8440, 8449 and 8452, a Street Vacation, and a Development Agreement, among other related
actions. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the “At Dublin
Project” or the “Project;” and
WHEREAS, the Project site is 76.9 acres generally bound by Tassajara Road, Gleason
Drive, Brannigan Street and I-580 (APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-
0052-024, and 985-0052-025); and
WHEREAS, the Project site is located within the Dublin Town Center Priority Development
Area (PDA) which includes a mix of housing types including single -family detached, townhomes,
condominiums and apartments. The Town Center PDA is envisioned as a walkable area with
locally serving businesses within walking distance or a short ride from residential neighborhoods,
conveniently served by transit; and
WHEREAS, the Project site is located within a Planned Development Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the Project plans, illustrate the site layout for the Project consistent with the
General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Planned Development zoning proposed as part
of this Project; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the CEQA
Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that certain projects be
reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City prepared a Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated July 2018, a Final EIR dated October 2018, and an
Errata dated January 2020, for the proposed Project, which reflected the City’s independent
judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR identified potentially significant environmental effects anticipated
as a result of the Project such as, aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal
resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and transportation, m ost
of which can be substantially reduced through mitigation measures; and
2
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was circulated for 45 days for public comment from July 6, 2018
to August 20, 2018; and
WHEREAS, comments received on the Draft EIR were reviewed and responded to, and
the Final EIR (that contains the Response to Comments) dated October 2018 was prepared; and
WHEREAS, following a public hearing on October 30, 2018, the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution No. 18-24, recommending denial of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendments and the entirety of the Project, consisting of up to 665 residential units
comprised of apartments, townhomes and detached small -lot single-family homes and up to
400,500 square feet of commercial development, related infrastructure, a public park and
landscape improvements, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for
review at City Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2018, following a request from the Applicant, the City
Council continued the Project to an undetermined future date; and
WHEREAS, in October 2019, the Applicant submitted a revised Project in response to
public comments, consisting of up to 566 residential units comprised of apartments, detached
small-lot single-family homes and 55 and older age restricted single-family homes, up to 240,000
square feet of retail commercial development, and related infrastructure and landscape
improvements; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, the City analyzed the revised
Project and determined that there was no new significant information, or substantially more
severe, significant environmental impact as a result of the revised Project, requiring recirculation
of the EIR; and
WHEREAS, following a public hearing on February 25, 2020, the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution No. 20-05, recommending denial of the proposed amendments to the General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the At Dublin project based on traffic impacts,
pedestrian and bicycle concerns, and the Project’s inconsistency with the longstanding vision for
these parcels, namely less housing and more commercial/retail serving as a “town center” and
“gateway to the city” with a walkable environment, which resolution is incorporated herein by
reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated June 16, 2020 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project, including Vesting Tentative Map Nos. 8440, 8449 and 8452,
for the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on Vesting Tentative
Map Nos. 8440, 8449 and 8452 on June 16, 2020, at which time all interested parties had the
opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, on June 16, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. xx-20 certifying
the At Dublin Project EIR and adopting CEQA findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations,
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project; and
3
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use independent judgment and considered all
said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby make
the following findings and determinations regarding the proposed Vesting Tentative Map Nos.
8440, 8449 and 8452 for the Project:
A. The proposed subdivision map together with the provisions for its design and improvement
is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan because: 1) the
proposed Vesting Tentative Map Nos. 8440, 8449 and 8452 together with the provisions
for their design and improvements comply with the development standards of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and Stage 2 Development Plan .
B. The subdivision site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of
development because: 1) the Project site is physically suitable for the type and proposed
density of development is consistent with the land use designations of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and Stage 2 Development Plan; 2) the proposed development is consistent
with the scale of other developments in the immediate vicinity; and 3) t he Project site is
located on 77.3 gross acres of relatively flat topography and, therefore, is physically
suitable for the type and density of development that is proposed.
C. The tentative tract map is consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision design or
improvements of the tentative tract map are consistent with the ci ty’s general plan and
any applicable specific plan because: 1) the proposed Vesting Tentative Maps to create
parcels that generally reflect the Planning Areas as proposed for residential and
commercial uses are consistent with the development densities of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and Stage 2 Development Plan.
D. The subdivision design and proposed improvements will not cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat because: 1) the proposed Vesting Tentative Maps are for the development of a
relatively flat and vacant property which has been disturbed through vegetation
management for years; 2) the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (Resolution
No. xx-20) which mitigated any potential impacts and, therefore, the proposed subdivision
will not result in environmental damage or substantially injure fish or wildlife or their habitat
or cause public health concerns.
E. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause serious public health
concerns because: 1) the design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause
serious public health concerns as it has been conditioned to comply with all building codes
and ordinances in effect at the time of permit issuance; 2) in addition, the City conducted
a review to evaluate the Project’s impacts; and 3) the City certified an Environmental
Impact Report (Resolution No. xx-20) which mitigated any potential impacts to public.
F. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed
4
subdivision; or alternate easements are provided pursuant to Government Code
Section 66474(g) because: 1) the City Engineer has reviewed the Vesting Tentative Maps
and title report and has determined that the future proposed buildings will not conflict with
existing or new easements nor with future property lines.
G. The design or improvements of the tentative map are consistent with the city’s general
plan and any applicable specific plan because: 1) the proposed Vesting Tentative Maps
together with the provisions for their design and improvements comply with the
development standards of the Stage 2 Planned Development and the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan.
H. The subdivision is designed to provide for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities because: 1) the Project would be constructed in accordance with the latest
building code and green building regulations/CalGreen; 2) the Project includes green
common spaces through a network of plazas, parks and paseos that are designed with
landscaping to reduce urban heat island effects; and 3) landscaping will be provided
throughout the surface parking lot providing natural shading and a parking structure for
the multi-family use in PA-1 is proposed which would provide shade and reduce open
parking areas.
I. The tentative tract map, including design and improvement, shall comply with all the
applicable provisions and requirements of the zoning ordinance, the latest municipal
stormwater permit issued to the city by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, this tit le,
any other ordinance of the city, and the Subdivision Map Act because: 1) the Project is
compliant with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay
Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit; 2) the Project would include
bioretention areas and stormwater treatment vaults to ensure consistency with regional
C.3 stormwater treatment; and 3) the Project would include full trash capture devices to
ensure consistency with regional C.10 stormwater treatment requirements.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby
approve Vesting Tentative Map Nos. 8440, 8449 and 8452 for the At Dublin Project, subject to
the conditions included below.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of
building permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Department review and
approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies respo nsible for monitoring
compliance of the conditions of approval. [PL.] Planning, [B] Building, [PO] Police, [PW] Public
Works [P&CS] Parks & Community Services, [ADM] Administration/City Attorney, [FIN] Finance,
[F] Alameda County Fire Department, [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District, [CO] Alameda
County Department of Environmental Health, [Z7] Zone 7.
# CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
General Conditions
1. Approval. This approval is for the At Dublin Project
(PLPA-2017-00061). This approval shall be as generally
depicted and indicated on the Vesting Tentative Map
PL Ongoing
5
prepared Ruggeri Jensen Azar, dated January 14, 2020,
attached as Exhibit A and other plans, text, and diagrams
relating to this Project, and as specified as the following
Conditions of Approval for this project.
2. Permit Expiration. The Vesting Tentative Maps term
shall coincide with the Term of Project Approvals defined
in the Development Agreement.
PW Defer to the DA
3. Compliance. Applicant/Developer shall comply with the
Subdivision Map Act, the City of Dublin Subdivision and
Zoning Ordinances, City of Dublin Title 7 Public Works
Ordinance, which includes the Grading Ordinance, the
City of Dublin Public Works Standards and Policies, the
most current requirements of the State Code Title 24 and
the Americans with Disabilities Act with regard to
accessibility, and all building and fire codes and
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. All public
improvements constructed by Applicant/Developer and to
be dedicated to the City are hereby identified as “public
works” under Labor Code section 1771. Accordingly,
Applicant/Developer, in constructing such improvements,
shall comply with the Prevailing Wage Law (Labor Code.
Sects. 1720 and following).
Various Final Map
Approval,
Grading Permit
or Building
Permit Issuance
4. Fees. The Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable
fees and receive all applicable fee credits in effect at the
time of Final Map approval, Grading Permit issuance and
Building Permit issuance, including, but not limited to:
Planning fees; Building fees; Traffic Impact Fees, TVTC
fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District fees; Public
Facilities fees; Dublin Unified School District Impact fees,
Fire Facilities Impact fees, Alameda County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) fees, and any
other fee or credit that may be adopted and applicable, as
provided by the Development Agreement. The Developer
shall be eligible for Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee
(EDTIF) credits for public improvements constructed on
Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard, Central Parkway and
Gleason Drive as well as certain improvements to
Branigan associated with intersection improvements. The
amount of credit shall be consistent with the
improvements constructed, not to exceed the amount set
forth in the EDTIF.
Various Final Map
Approval,
Grading Permit
or Building
Permit Issuance
5. Zone 7 Impervious Surface Fees. The
Applicant/Developer shall complete a “Zone 7 Impervious
Surface Fee Application” and submit an accompanying
exhibit for review by the Public Works Department. Fees
generated by this application will be due at issuance of
Building Permit.
PW Final Map
Approval,
Grading Permit
or Building
Permit Issuance
6. Hold Harmless/Indemnification. The
Applicant/Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and
employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against
the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board,
ADM On-going
6
Planning Commission, City Council, Community
Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other
department, committee, or agency of the City to the extent
such actions are brought within the time period required
by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other
applicable law: provided, however, that the
Applicant/Developer’s duty to so defend, indemnify, and
hold harmless shall be submitted to the City’s promptly
notifying or proceeding and the City’s full cooperation in
the defense of such actions or proceedings.
7. Clarifications and Changes to the Conditions. In the
event that there needs to be clarification to these
Conditions of Approval, the City Engineer and Community
Development Director has the authority to clarify the intent
of these Conditions of Approval to the
Applicant/Developer without going to a public hearing.
The City Engineer also has the authority to make minor
modifications to these conditions without going to a public
hearing in order for the Applicant/Developer to fulfill
needed improvements or mitigations resulting from
impacts of this project.
PL, PW On-going
Planning – Project Specific Conditions
8. Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Applicant/
Developer shall comply with At Dublin Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) certified by City Council Resolution
xx-18, including all mitigation measures, action programs,
and implementation measures contained therein.
Improvement plans shall incorporate the all improvements
required including, but not limited to, MM TR-1.1 The EIR
is on file with the Community Development Department.
PL, PW Approval of
Improvement
Plans and
Ongoing
Dublin San Ramon Services District
9. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be by
separate instrument irrevocably offered to DSRSD or by
offer of dedication on the Final Map. Prior to approval by
the City for Recordation, the Final Map shall be submitted
to and approved by DSRSD for easement locations,
widths, and restrictions.
DSRSD Approval of Final
Map
Public Works - General Conditions
10. Conditions of Approval. Developer shall comply with the
City of Dublin Public Works General Conditions of
Approval below (“General Conditions”) unless specifically
modified by the Project Specific Conditions of Approval
that follow the General Conditions.
PW On-going
Public Works - Agreements
11. Storm Water Treatment Measures Maintenance
Agreement. Applicant/Developer shall enter into an
Agreement with the City of Dublin that guarantees the
property owner’s perpetual maintenance obligation for all
stormwater treatment measures installed as part of the
project, including those on-site and within the public
Rights of Way. Said Agreement is required pursuant to
Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater
NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2009-0074. Said permit
requires the City to provide verification and assurance that
PW Approval of Final
Map
7
all treatment devices will be properly operated and
maintained. The Agreement shall be recorded against the
property and shall run with the land.
12. Improvement Agreement. Applicant/Developer shall
enter into a Tract Improvement Agreement with the City
for all public improvements including any required offsite
storm drainage or roadway improvements that are needed
to serve the development, as determined by the City
Engineer.
PW Approval of Final
Map
Public Works – Permits and Bonds
13. Encroachment Permit. Applicant/Developer shall obtain
an Encroachment Permit from the Public Works
Department for all construction activity within the public
right-of-way. At the discretion of the City Engineer an
encroachment permit for work specifically included in an
Improvement Agreement may not be required.
PW Permit Issuance
14. Grading Permit. Applicant/Developer shall obtain a
Grading Permit from the Public Works Department for all
grading.
PW Permit Issuance
15. Security. Applicant/Developer shall provide faithful
performance security to guarantee the improvements, as
determined by the City Engineer (Note: The performance
security shall remain in effect until one year after final
inspection).
PW Permit Issuance
16. Permits from Other Agencies. Applicant/Developer
shall obtain all permits and/or approvals required by
other agencies including, but not limited to:
• Army Corps of Engineers
• US Fish and Wildlife
• Regional Water Quality Control Board
• Federal Emergency Management Agency
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife
• California Dept. of Transportation (Caltrans)
• Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
• Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority
(LAVTA)
• Tri-Valley-San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail
Authority
• Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD)
• Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District Zone 7 (Zone 7)
PW Permit Issuance
Public Works – Submittals
17. Improvement Plan Submittal Requirements. All
submittals of plans shall comply with the requirements of
the “City of Dublin Public Works Department Improvement
Plan Submittal Requirements”, the “City of Dublin
Improvement Plan Review Check List,” and current Public
Works and industry standards. A complete submittal of
improvement plans shall include all civil improvements,
joint trench, street lighting and on-site safety lighting,
landscape plans, and all associated documents as
required. Applicant/Developer shall not piecemeal the
submittal by submitting various components separately.
PW Grading Permit
Issuance
8
18. Improvement Plan Requirements from Other
Agencies. Applicant/Developer will be responsible for
submittals and reviews to obtain the approvals of all
applicable non-City agencies, including but not limited to:
the Alameda County Fire Department and the Dublin San
Ramon Services District.
PW Grading Permit
Issuance
19. Composite Exhibit. Construction plan set shall include a
Composite Exhibit showing all site improvements, utilities,
landscaping improvements and trees, etc. to be
constructed to ensure that there are no conflicts among
the proposed and existing improvements.
PW Grading Permit
Issuance
20. Geotechnical Report. Applicant/Developer shall submit
a Design Level Geotechnical Report, which includes street
pavement sections, grading and additional information
and/or clarifications as determined by the City Engineer.
PW Grading Permit
Issuance
21. Ownership and Maintenance of Improvements.
Applicant/Developer shall submit an Ownership and
Maintenance Exhibit for review and approval by Planning
Division and Public Works Department. Terms of
maintenance are subject to review and approval by the
City Engineer.
PL, PW Approval of Final
Map or Grading
Permit Issuance
22. Building Pads, Slopes and Walls. Applicant/Developer
shall provide the Public Works Department with a letter
from a registered civil engineer or surveyor stating that the
building pads have been graded to within 0.1 feet of the
grades shown on the approved Grading Plans, and that
the top & toe of banks and retaining walls are at the
locations shown on the approved Grading Plans.
PW Acceptance of
Improvements
23. Approved Plan Files. Applicant/Developer shall provide
the Public Works Department a PDF format file of
approved site plans, including grading, improvement,
landscaping & irrigation, joint trench and lighting.
PW Grading Permit
Issuance
24. Master Files. Applicant/Developer shall provide the
Public Works Department a digital vectorized file of the
“master” files for the project, in a format acceptable to the
City Engineer. Digital raster copies are not acceptable.
The digital vectorized files shall be in AutoCAD 14 or
higher drawing format. All objects and entities in layers
shall be colored by layer and named in English. All
submitted drawings shall use the Global Coordinate
System of USA, California, NAD 83 California State Plane,
Zone III, and U.S. foot.
PW Acceptance of
Improvements
Public Works – Final Map, Easements and Access Rights
25. Dedications. All rights-of-way and easement dedications
required by these conditions or determined necessary by
the City Engineer shall be shown on the Final Map.
PW Approval of Final
l Map
26. Public Service Easements. A Public Service Easement
(PSE), at a width to be approved by the City Engineer,
shall be dedicated along the project’s frontage on
Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard, Central Parkway,
Gleason Drive and Brannigan Street to allow for the proper
placement of public utility vaults, boxes, appurtenances or
similar items behind the back-of-sidewalk. Private
improvements such as fences, gates or trellises shall not
PW Approval of Final
Map
9
be located within the PSE.
27. Emergency Vehicle Access Easements. The
Applicant/Developer shall dedicate Emergency Vehicle
Access Easements (EVAE) over the clear pavement width
of all drive aisles as required by the Alameda County Fire
Department and City Engineer.
PW Approval of Final
Map
28. Abandonment of Easements. Applicant/Developer shall
obtain abandonment from all applicable public agencies of
existing easements and rights-of-way within the project
site that will no longer be used. Prior to completion of
abandonment, the improvement plans may be approved if
the Applicant/Developer can demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer that the abandonment
process has been initiated.
PW Approval of Final
Map
29. Acquisition of Easements. Applicant/Developer shall be
responsible for obtaining all onsite and offsite easements,
and/or obtain rights-of-entry from the adjacent property
owners for any improvements not located on their
property. The Applicant/Developer shall prepare all
required documentation for dedication of all easements
on-site and off-site. The easements and/or rights-of-entry
shall be in writing and copies furnished to the Public Works
Department.
PW Approval of Final
Map
Public Works – Grading
30. Grading Plan. The Grading Plan shall be in conformance
with the recommendation of the Geotechnical Report, the
approved Tentative Map and Site Development Review,
and the City design standards & ordinances. In case of
conflict between the soil engineer’s recommendation and
the City ordinances, the City Engineer shall determine
which shall apply.
PW Grading Permit
Issuance
31. Geotechnical Engineer Review and Approval. The
Project Geotechnical Engineer shall be retained to
review all final grading plans and specifications. The
Project Geotechnical Engineer shall approve all grading
plans prior to
City approval.
PW Grading Permit
Issuance/
Sitework Permit
32. Grading Off-Haul. The disposal site and haul truck route
for any off-haul dirt materials shall be subject to the review
and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of
a Grading Permit. If the Developer does not own the
parcel on which the proposed disposal site is located, the
Applicant/Developer shall provide the City with a Letter of
Consent signed by the current owner, approving the
placement of off-haul material on their parcel. A Grading
Plan may be required for the placement of the off-haul
material.
PW Grading Permit
Issuance/
Sitework Permit
33. Erosion Control Plan. A detailed Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan shall be included with the Grading Plan
submittal. The plan shall include detailed design, location,
and maintenance criteria of all erosion and sedimentation
control measures.
PW Grading Permit
Issuance
34. Demolition Plan. The Applicant/Developer’s Civil Engineer
shall prepare a demolition plan for the project, which shall
PW Grading Permit
Issuance
10
be submitted concurrent with the improvement plan
package. The demolition plan shall address the following:
• Pavement demolition, including streetlights and
landscaped median islands.
• Landscaping and irrigation
• Fencing to be removed and fencing to remain
• Any items to be saved in place and or protected,
such as trees, water meters, sewer cleanouts,
drainage inlets or backflow prevention devices.
Public Works – Storm Drainage & Other Utilities
35. On-site Storm Drain System. Storm drainage for the 10-
year storm event shall be collected on-site and conveyed
through storm drains to the public storm drain system.
Show the size and location of existing and proposed storm
drains and catch basins on the site plan. Show the size
and location of public storm drain lines and the points of
connection for the on-site storm drain system.
PW Grading Permit
Issuance
36. Overland Release. Grading and drainage shall be
designed so that surplus drainage (above and beyond that
of the 10-year storm event) not collected in site catch
basins, is directed overland so as not to cause flooding of
existing or proposed buildings.
PW Grading Permit
Issuance
37. Storm Drain Easements. Private storm drain easements
and maintenance roads shall be provided for all private
storm drains or ditches that are located on private
property. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible
for the acquisition of all storm drain easements from offsite
property owners which are required for the connection and
maintenance of all offsite storm drainage improvements.
PW Grading Permit
Issuance
38. Storm Drain Inlet Markers. All public and private storm
drain inlets must be marked with storm drain markers that
read: “No dumping, drains to creek,” and a note shall be
shown on the improvement plans. The markers may be
purchased from the Public Work Department.
PW Acceptance of
Improvements
39. Fire Hydrants. Fire hydrant locations shall be approved
by the Alameda County Fire Department. A raised
reflector blue traffic marker shall be installed in the street
opposite each hydrant, and shown on the signing &
striping plan.
PW Acceptance of
Improvements
40. Dry Utilities. Applicant/Developer shall construct gas,
electric, telephone, cable TV, and communication
improvements within the fronting streets and as necessary
to serve the project and the future adjacent parcels as
approved by the City Engineer and the various Public
Utility agencies.
PW Certificate of
Occupancy or
Acceptance of
Improvements
41. Dry Utility Locations. All electric, telephone, cable TV,
and communications utilities, shall be placed underground
in accordance with the City policies and ordinances. All
utilities shall be located and provided within public utility
easements or public services easements and sized to
meet utility company standards.
PW Certificate of
Occupancy or
Acceptance of
Improvements
42. Utility Vaults and Boxes. All utility vaults, boxes, and
structures, unless specifically approved otherwise by the
PW Certificate of
Occupancy or
11
City Engineer, shall be underground and placed in
landscaped areas and screened from public view.
Landscape drawings shall be submitted to the City
showing the location of all utility vaults, boxes, and
structures and adjacent landscape features and plantings.
The Joint Trench Plans shall be submitted along with the
grading and/or improvement plans.
Acceptance of
Improvements
Public Works – Street Improvements
43. Public Improvements. The public improvements shall be
constructed generally as shown on the Vesting Tentative
Map. However, the approval of the Tentative Map is not
an approval of the specific design of the drainage, traffic
circulation, parking, stormwater treatment, sidewalks and
street improvements.
PW Grading Permit
or
Encroachment
Permit Issuance
44. Public Improvement Conformance. All public
improvements shall conform to the City of Dublin Standard
Plans, current practices, and design requirements and as
approved by the City Engineer.
PW Grading Permit
or
Encroachment
Permit Issuance
45. Public Street Slopes. Public streets shall be a minimum
1% slope with minimum gutter flow of 0.7% around bulb
outs.
PW Grading Permit
or
Encroachment
Permit Issuance
46. Decorative Pavement. Any decorative pavers/paving
installed within City right-of-way shall be done to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. Where decorative paving
is installed at signalized intersections, pre-formed traffic
signal loops shall be put under the decorative pavement.
Decorative pavements shall not interfere with the
placement of traffic control devices, including pavement
markings. All turn lane stripes, stop bars and crosswalks
shall be delineated with concrete bands or colored pavers
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Maintenance costs
of the decorative paving shall be the responsibility of the
Applicant/Developer or future property owner.
PW Grading Permit
or
Encroachment
Permit Issuance
47. Curb, Gutter & Sidewalk. Applicant/Developer shall
remove and replace damaged, hazardous, or nonstandard
curb, gutter and sidewalk along the project frontage.
Contact the Public Works Department to mark the existing
curb, gutter and sidewalk that will need to be removed and
replaced.
PW Grading Permit
or
Encroachment
Permit Issuance
48. Curb Ramps. City standard curb ramps are required at
all intersections. All curb ramps shall include truncated
domes, and meet the most current City and ADA design
standards. Show curb ramp locations on the plans.
Please note that all curb returns on public streets shall
have directional or dual ADA ramps – one for each
crosswalk and oriented to align parallel with the crosswalk.
PW Grading Permit
or
Encroachment
Permit Issuance
49. Intersection Site Visibility Triangle. All improvements
within the sight visibility triangle at all intersections,
including but not limited to walls and landscaping, shall be
a maximum height of 30” from the roadway surface
elevation at the nearest lane. Intersection Sight Visibility
Triangles shall be calculated using the Corner Sight
Distance Criteria for signalized intersections and the Safe
PW Grading Permit
or
Encroachment
Permit Issuance
12
Stopping Sight Distance Criteria for all other intersections
as defined in the latest edition of the Caltrans Highway
Design Manual. Design of the intersection Visibility
Triangles shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
50. Bus Stops. Bus Stops shall be installed as per the
requirements of the Livermore Amador Valley Transit
Authority (LAVTA). LAVTA shall approve the location and
design of all bus stops, as part of the off-site improvement
plans.
PW Grading Permit
or
Encroachment
Permit Issuance
51. Traffic Signal Interconnect (Fiber Optic). A fiber Optic
interconnect for traffic signals shall be installed to connect
to all traffic signals inside the project frontages as per the
City’s requirements and shall include the fiber optic
communication connectivity to existing upstream and
downstream signals.
PW Grading Permit
or
Encroachment
Permit Issuance
52. Traffic Signing and Striping. Applicant/Developer shall
install all traffic signage, striping, and pavement markings
as required by the City Engineer. Signing plans shall show
street name and stop signs and any other regulatory
signage appropriate for the project. Striping plans shall
show stop bars, lane lines and channelization as
necessary. Striping plans shall distinguish between
existing striping to be removed and new striping to be
installed. All striping shall be thermoplastic.
PW Grading Permit
or
Encroachment
Permit Issuance
53. Street Lighting. Street light standards and luminaries
shall be designed and installed or relocated as determined
by the City Engineer.
PW Grading Permit
or
Encroachment
Permit Issuance
Public Works – Construction
54. Erosion Control Implementation. The Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan shall be implemented between
October 1st and April 30th unless otherwise allowed in
writing by the City Engineer. The Applicant/Developer will
be responsible for maintaining erosion and sediment
control measures for one year following the City’s
acceptance of the improvements.
PW Start of
Construction
and On-going
55. Archaeological Finds. If archaeological materials are
encountered during construction, construction within 100
ft of these materials shall be halted until a professional
Archaeologist certified by the Society of Calif.
Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of Professional
Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate
the significance of the find and suggest appropriate
mitigation measures.
PW Start of
Construction
and On-going
56. Construction Activities. Construction activities,
including the idling, maintenance, and warming up of
equipment, shall be limited to Monday through Friday, and
non-City holidays, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and
6:00 p.m. except as otherwise approved by the City
Engineer. Extended hours or Saturday work will be
considered by the City Engineer on a case-by-case basis.
Note that the construction hours of operation within the
public right-of-way are more restrictive.
PW Start of
Construction
and On-going
13
57. Temporary Fencing. Temporary construction fencing
shall be installed along the construction work perimeter to
separate the construction area from the public. All
construction activities shall be confined within the fenced
area. Construction materials and/or equipment shall not
be operated/stored outside of the fenced area or within the
public right-of-way unless approved in advance by the City
Engineer.
PW Start of
Construction
and On-going
58. Construction Noise Management Plan.
Applicant/Developer shall prepare a construction noise
management plan that identifies measures to minimize
construction noise on surrounding developed properties.
The plan shall include hours of construction operation, use
of mufflers on construction equipment, speed limit for
construction traffic, haul routes and identify a noise
monitor. Specific noise management measures shall be
provided prior to project construction.
PW Start of
Construction
Implementation,
and On-going as
needed
59. Traffic Control Plan. Closing of any existing pedestrian
pathway and/or sidewalk during construction shall be
implemented through a City-approved Traffic Control Plan
and shall be done with the goal of minimizing the impact
on pedestrian circulation.
PW Start of
Construction
and On-going as
needed
60. Construction Traffic Interface Plan.
Applicant/Developer shall prepare a plan for construction
traffic interface with public traffic on any existing public
street. Construction traffic and parking may be subject to
specific requirements by the City Engineer.
PW Start of
Construction;
Implementation,
and On-going as
needed
61. Pest Control. Applicant/Developer shall be responsible
for controlling any rodent, mosquito, or other pest problem
due to construction activities.
PW On-going
62. Dust Control Measures. Applicant/Developer shall be
responsible for watering or other dust-palliative measures
to control dust as conditions warrant or as directed by the
City Engineer.
PW Start of
Construction;
Implementation
On-going as
needed
63. Construction Traffic and Parking. All construction-
related parking shall be off-street in an area provided by
the Applicant/Developer. Construction traffic and parking
shall be provided in a manner approved by the City
Engineer.
PW Start of
Construction
and On-going
64. Dust Control/Street Sweeping. The
Applicant/Developer shall provide adequate dust control
measures at all times during the grading and hauling
operations. All trucks hauling export and import materials
shall be provided with tarp cover at all times. Spillage of
haul materials and mud-tracking on the haul routes shall
be prevented at all times. The Applicant/Developer shall
be responsible for sweeping of streets within, surrounding
and adjacent to the project if it is determined that the
tracking or accumulation of material on the streets is due
to its construction activities.
PW During Grading
and Site Work
Public Works – Erosion Control & Stormwater Quality
65. Stormwater Treatment. Consistent with Provision C.3 of
the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP)
PW Grading Permit
Issuance
14
Order No. R2-2015-0049, and the Revised Stormwater
Management Plan for Dublin Ranch dated March
2003 and the Dublin Ranch Waste Discharge
Requirements pursuant to RWQCB Order R2-2003-003.1,
NPDES Permit CAS0029831, Applicant/Developer shall
submit documentation including construction drawings
demonstrating all stormwater treatment measures and
hydromodification requirements as applicable are met.
66. Green Stormwater Infrastructure. The
Applicant/Developer shall incorporate Green
Infrastructure facilities within the public rights-of-way of
newly constructed or widened streets, subject to the
review of the Public Works Department. Green
Stormwater Infrastructure facilities include, but are not
limited to: infiltration basins, bioretention facilities,
pervious pavements, etc.
PW Grading Permit
or
Encroachment
Permit Issuance
67. NOI and SWPPP. Prior to any clearing or grading,
Applicant/Developer shall provide the City evidence that a
Notice of Intent (NOI) has been sent to the California State
Water Resources Control Board per the requirements of
the NPDES. A copy of the Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the Public
Works Department and be kept at the construction site.
PW Start of Any
Construction
Activities
68. SWPPP. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) shall identify the Best Management Practices
(BMPs) appropriate to the project construction activities.
The SWPPP shall include the erosion and sediment
control measures in accordance with the regulations
outlined in the most current version of the Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Erosion and Sediment
Control Handbook or State Construction Best
Management Practices Handbook. The
Applicant/Developer is responsible for ensuring that all
contractors implement all storm water pollution prevention
measures in the SWPPP.
PW SWPPP to be
Prepared Prior
to Grading
Permit Issuance;
Implementation
Prior to Start of
Construction
and On-going as
needed
69. Stormwater Management Plan. A final Stormwater
Management Plan shall be submitted for review and
approval by the City Engineer. Approval is subject to the
Applicant/Developer providing the necessary plans,
details, and calculations that demonstrate the plan
complies with the standards issued by the San Francisco
Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Alameda
Countywide Clean Water Program Revised Stormwater
Management Plan for Dublin Ranch dated March
2003 and the Dublin Ranch Waste Discharge
Requirements pursuant to RWQCB Order R2-2003-003.1,
NPDES Permit CAS0029831.
PW Building Permit
Issuance and
Grading Permit
Issuance
70. Trash Capture. The project Stormwater Management
Plan shall incorporate trash capture measures such as
screens, filters or hydrodynamic separator units to
address the requirements of Provision C.10 of the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) or such MRP provisions
as may be in effect at the time the Improvement Plans are
PW Building Permit
Issuance and
Grading Permit
Issuance
15
approved.
Public Works – Onsite Improvements
71. Drive Aisle Width. The parking lot aisles shall be a
minimum of 24 feet wide to allow for adequate onsite
vehicle circulation for cars, trucks, and emergency
vehicles.
PW Grading Permit
Issuance
72. Vehicle Parking. All on-site vehicle parking spaces
shall conform to the following:
a. All parking spaces shall be double striped using
4” white lines set 2 feet apart in accordance with
City Standards and DMC 8.76.070.A.17.
b. 12”-wide concrete step-out curbs shall be
constructed at each parking space where one or
both sides abut a landscaped area or planter.
c. Where wheel stops are shown, individual 6’ long
wheel stops shall be provided within each parking
space in accordance with City Standards.
d. A minimum 2’ radius shall be provided at curb
returns and curb intersections where applicable.
e. Parking stalls next to walls, fences and
obstructions to vehicle door opening shall be an
additional 4’ in width per DMC 8.76.070.A.16.
f. Landscaped strips adjacent to parking stalls shall
be unobstructed in order to allow for a minimum
2-foot vehicular overhang at front of vehicles.
PW Grading Permit
Issuance
73. Signing and Striping Plan. A Traffic Signing and Striping
Plan showing all existing and proposed signing and
striping within public streets, on-site private streets,
parking lots and drive aisles, shall be submitted for review
and approval by the City Engineer.
PW Grading Permit
or
Encroachment
Permit Issuance
74. Project signs. All proposed project monument signs
shall be placed on private property. Signs should be
located outside of any easement areas unless specifically
approved by the City Engineer. Any signage allowed to
be located in an easement is subject to removal and
replacement at the expense of the Developer/property
owner if required by the easement holder.
PW Grading Permit
Issuance
Public Works – Project Specific Conditions
75. Landscape Features within Public Right-of-Way. The
Developer shall enter into an “Agreement for Long Term
Encroachment for Landscape Features” with the City to
require the homeowner’s association/commercial owner’s
association/property owner to maintain the landscape and
decorative features within public right-of-way including
frontage landscaping, decorative pavements and special
features (i.e. walls, portals, benches, shade arbors, storm
water treatment facilities, etc.). The Agreement shall
identify the ownership of the special features and
maintenance responsibilities. The HOA, COA, or property
owner will be responsible for maintaining the surface of all
decorative pavements including restoration required as
the result of utility repairs.
PW Final Map
16
76. Public Street Improvements. Developer shall construct
all street improvements on Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara
Road, Brannigan Street, Central Parkway and Gleason
Drive as generally shown on the Vesting Tentative Map,
and as approved by the City Engineer. Required roadway
and utility improvements shall include, but are not limited
to, the installation of sidewalk, curb and gutter, curb
ramps, driveways, roadway widening, drainage structures,
street trees, utilities, landscaping, irrigation, bio-retention
planters, fire hydrants, signal modifications and
installations, median modifications and installations, slurry
seal and/or grind and overlay of existing roadway
pavement, signing and striping and restriping of existing
pavement.
PW Final Map or 1st
Building Permit
for each
Planning Area
77. Brannigan Street – South of Dublin Boulevard.
Developer shall construct all street improvements to
develop Brannigan Street as a public street south of
Dublin Boulevard as generally shown on the Vesting
Tentative Map plans. Required roadway and utility
improvements shall include, but are not limited to, the
installation of sidewalk, curb and gutter, curb ramps,
driveways, drainage structures, street trees, utilities,
landscaping, irrigation, bio-retention planters, fire
hydrants, signal modifications, removal of existing asphalt
berm, slurry seal and/or grind and overlay of existing
pavement, signing and striping.
PW Final Map or 1st
Building Permit
for Planning
Area PA-1
78. Brannigan Street – South of Dublin Boulevard - Right-
of-Way Acquisition. In accordance with the
Development Agreement, the Developer shall construct
the improvements necessary for an extension of
Brannigan Street that would extend south of Dublin
Boulevard and shall acquire the necessary land title and
interests from the adjoining property owner. Upon
submittal of the first Final Map that requires Brannigan
Street, south of Dublin Boulevard, to be improved, the
Developer shall provide evidence that the necessary right-
of-way or easements have been obtained. If the
Developer is unable, through the use of diligent efforts as
specified in the Development Agreement and in
accordance with Government Code Section (Subdivision
Map Act) 66462.5, to obtain the necessary right-of-way or
easements, the City shall exercise its power of eminent
domain to obtain the necessary right-of-way or
easements, and the Developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City. All costs associated with
acquisition shall be the obligation of the Developer.
PW Final Map or 1st
Building Permit
for Planning
Area PA-1
79. Private Street and Common Area Improvements.
Developer shall construct all common area improvements,
private streets, private alleys and all other site and
subdivision improvements owned or maintained by the
homeowners’ association, commercial owner’s
association and/or property owner as generally shown on
the Vesting Tentative Map, and as approved by the City
Engineer. Such improvements shall be included in the
PW Final Map or 1st
Building Permit
for each
Planning Area
17
Tract Improvement Agreement for the Final Map on each
Planning Area. Required on-site and subdivision
improvements include, but are not limited to, sidewalks,
curb and gutter, pavement areas, curb ramps, driveways,
parking and circulation in and at structures; enhanced
street paving; trails; parking spaces; street lights and
appurtenances; drainage facilities; utilities; landscape and
irrigation facilities; open space landscaping; stormwater
treatment facilities; striping and signage; and fire hydrants.
80. Bus Stops. Bus stops and pullouts shall be installed on
Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road, Central Parkway and
Gleason Drive at the locations generally shown on the
Vesting Tentative Map, and as approved by the City
Engineer and Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority
(LAVTA). Bus stops installed on Dublin Boulevard shall
be provided with a shelter with seating, lighting, and
hardwired electrical access, a trash receptacle and bus
stop sign stand. All other bus stops are to be provided
with benches and bus stop signs only.
PW Final Map or 1st
Building Permit
for each
Planning Area
81. Vacation of Northside Drive. The vacation of Northside
Drive is subject to the terms of the Development
Agreement.
PW Final Map for
Planning Area
PA-1
82. Gated Access to PA-2. Design and location of
pedestrian and vehicular access gate(s) to Planning Area
PA-2 (Tract 8449) shall be subject to review and approval
by the City Engineer, Community Development Director
and the Fire Department.
PW Final Map for
Planning Area
PA-2
83. Curb Ramps within Public Right-of-Way. The number,
location and layout of all curb ramps shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer with the Improvement
Plans submitted for the site. All curb ramps shall be
designed and constructed to provide direct access to
marked crosswalks or unmarked crossings and shall be
oriented such that they are aligned and parallel to the
marked crosswalk or unmarked crossing they are
intended to serve. Curb ramps serving more than one
marked crosswalk or unmarked crossing are not allowed,
unless specifically approved by the City Engineer on a
case by case basis. Curb ramp locations shall shall
provide for the full width of all marked crosswalks to be
clear of obstructions. A reduction in standard public street
minimum curb return radii will be allowed to the extent
deemed feasible by the City Engineer in order to facilitate
curb ramp installation. Existing facilities such as (but not
limited to) traffic signal poles, street lights, traffic signal
loops, fire hydrants, utility boxes and vaults, storm drain
inlets, signs, and striping my require relocation in order to
accommodate the curb ramp and crosswalk installations
on existing improved streets.
PW Final Map or 1st
Building Permit
for each
Planning Area
84. Pavement Structural Sections. Asphalt concrete
pavement sections within the public right-of-way shall be
designed using the Caltrans method for flexible pavement
design (including the asphalt factor of safety), an assumed
R-Value of 5 and the following traffic indices: Dublin
PW Final Map or 1st
Building Permit
for each
Planning Area
18
Boulevard and Tassajara Road, TI=11; Central Parkway,
Gleason Drive and Brannigan Street (south of Dublin
Blvd.), TI=9; Brannigan Street (north of Dublin Blvd.),
TI=7. Final pavement sections shall be based on the
actual R-Value obtained from pavement subgrade.
85. Street Restoration. A pavement treatment, such as
slurry seal, grind and overlay, or overlay will be required
within the public streets fronting and adjacent to the site
as determined by the Public Works Department. The type
and limits of the pavement treatment shall be determined
by the City Engineer based upon the number and
proximity of trench cuts, extent of frontage and median
improvements, extent of pavement striping and restriping,
condition of existing pavement, excessive wear and
tear/damage due to construction traffic, etc.
PW Final Map or 1st
Building Permit
for each
Planning Area
86. Dublin Boulevard, Central Parkway and Gleason Drive
Pavement Overlay. The existing unfinished asphalt
pavement section on Dublin Boulevard, Central Parkway
and Gleason Drive, between Brannigan Street and
Tassajara Road, shall be overlaid as necessary to
increase the existing pavement section to the design
finished asphalt pavement thickness consistent with the
Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee program requirements
for Segments 10, 18 and 20.
PW Final Map or 1st
Building Permit
for each
Planning Area
87. Tassajara Road Curb Grades. New curb grades along
the Tassajara Road project frontage widening shall be
designed to conform to the design pavement grades and
street cross-slope as shown on the original improvement
plans for Tassajara Road.
PW Final Map or 1st
Building Permit
for each
Planning Area
88. Private Maintenance of Public Improvements. The
following public improvements are to be privately
maintained by the adjacent homeowner’s
association/commercial owner’s association/property
owner as applicable:
Public street improvements along the project frontage
from back of curb to right-of-way line.
PW On-going
89. Street Trees. Street trees, irrigation and street grates
along project frontages shall be in conformance with the
City of Dublin Streetscape Master Plan, unless otherwise
modified by the Site Development Review Plans.
PW Final Map or 1st
Building Permit
for each
Planning Area
90. Stormwater Source Control. “No Dumping Drains to
Bay” storm drain medallions per City Standard shall be
placed on all public and private storm drain inlets. The
project shall incorporate all other applicable stormwater
source control measures as detailed in the City of Dublin’s
Stormwater Requirements Checklist.
PW Occupancy or
Acceptance of
Improvements
91. Soils Report. The Developer shall submit a detailed soils
report prepared by a qualified engineer, registered with
the State of California. The required report shall include
recommendations regarding pavement sections for all
project streets including all perimeter streets and internal
private driveways and parking lots. Grading operations
shall be in accordance with recommendations contained
in the required soils report and grading shall be supervised
PW 1st Final Map or
1st Building
Permit
19
by an engineer registered in the State of California to do
such work.
92. Geotechnical Engineer Review and Approval. The
Project Geotechnical Engineer shall be retained to
review all final grading plans and specifications. The
Project Geotechnical Engineer shall approve all grading
plans prior to
City approval.
PW 1st Final Map or
1st Building
Permit
93. CLOMR-F. A FEMA Conditional Letter of Map Revision
Based on Fill (CLOMR-F) shall be provided to the City for
Planning Area PA-1 (Tract 8440) stating that the portions
of that parcel that will elevated by fill will not be inundated
by the base flood if the fill is placed as proposed on the
Grading Plan. A final Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill
(LOMA-F) will be required and shall be provided to the City
prior to the issuance of any Permit within Planning Area
PA-1.
PW Final Map or
Issuance of
Grading Permit
on Planning
Area PA-1
94. Phasing of Grading. Grading within Planning Areas PA-
1 (Tract 8440) and PA-4 (Tract 8452, north of Gleason
Drive) may be phased as necessary to avoid disturbance
of the delineated wetland areas until the necessary
jurisdictional permits are obtained while permitting grading
to proceed on other portions of the sites outside of the
wetland areas. Phased grading to avoid disturbance of
wetlands is subject to the approval and conditions of the
jurisdictional agencies.
PW Issuance of
Grading Permit
of Planning
Areas PA-1 or
PA-4
95. Dust Control/Street Sweeping. The Developer shall
provide adequate dust control measures at all times
during the grading and hauling operations. All trucks
hauling export and import materials shall be provided with
tarp cover at all times. Spillage of haul materials and mud-
tracking on the haul routes shall be prevented at all times.
Developer shall be responsible for sweeping of streets
within, surrounding and adjacent to the project if it is
determined that the tracking or accumulation of material
on the streets is due to its construction activities.
PW During Grading
and Site Work
96. Underground Obstructions. Prior to demolition,
excavation and grading on any portion of the project site,
all underground obstructions (i.e. debris, septic tanks, fuel
tanks, barrels, chemical waste) shall be identified and
removed pursuant to Federal, State and local regulations
and subject to the review and approval by the City.
Excavations shall be properly backfilled using structural
fill, subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.
PW Issuance of
Grading Permit
97. Resource Agency Permits. Prior to the start of any
grading of the site as necessary, permits shall be obtained
from the US Army Corps of Engineers, the San Francisco
Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State of
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the US
Fish and Wildlife Service for the grading or alteration of
wetland areas within the site, if applicable. The project
shall be modified as needed to comply with the conditions
of the permits.
PW Issuance of
Grading Permit
98. Lighting. The Developer shall prepare a photometric plan PW Final Map or 1st
20
for the public street and site lighting to demonstrate that
the minimum 1.0 foot candle lighting level is provided in
accordance with the City of Dublin’s requirements, or as
otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Complete
photometric data including high, average and minimum
values for illuminance and uniformity ratio shall be
provided. The photometric plan shall show lighting levels
which take into consideration poles, low walls and other
obstructions. Exterior lighting shall be provided within the
surface parking lots and on buildings and shall be of a
design and placement so as not to cause glare onto
adjoining properties, businesses or to vehicular traffic.
Lighting used after daylight hours shall be adequate to
provide for security needs. The parking lot lights shall be
designed to eliminate any pockets of high and low
illuminated areas.
Building Permit
for each
Planning Area
99. Lighting Inspection. Prior to Occupancy, the Applicant
shall request an inspection of the lighting levels
throughout the site to determine if lighting is sufficient. If
additional lights are required to be installed to meet the 1.0
foot-candle requirement, or for other safety or operational
reasons, the Applicant shall do so prior to Occupancy.
PW Occupancy
100. Waste Enclosures. Developer shall coordinate the waste
enclosure locations and sizes with the City to ensure
adequate capacity to serve the future residential,
restaurant and retail tenants. Waste enclosures shall
meet all requirements set forth in the Dublin Municipal
Code (DMC), Chapter 7.98 and in the Solid Waste
Requirements, Waste Handling Standards, and Waste
Enclosure Requirements Checklist on the City’s website
at the following link:
http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/1932/Development-Resources
PW Final Map or 1st
Building Permit
for each
Planning Area
101. Bicycle Parking. Developer shall install the bike lockers
and bike racks in accordance with California Green
Building Standards Code requirements. Locations of the
bicycle parking shall be subject to the review and approval
of the City Engineer.
PW 1st Building
Permit for each
Planning Are
102. Surface Slopes. Pavement surface slopes in parking lots
and drive aisles shall be a minimum of 0.5% and a
maximum of 5% (unless otherwise required at parking
spaces for the disabled and at ramps at the parking
structure and loading dock). Exceptions may be
considered by the City Engineer to account for unusual
design conditions.
PW Final Map or 1st
Building Permit
for each
Planning Area
103. Valley Link Project. The Developer shall dedicate right-
of-way along the southern boundary of Planning Area PA-
1 (Tract 8440) to accommodate any known planned future
improvements by the Valley Link project and/or Caltrans
in the manner and form determined by the City Engineer.
Developer shall ensure that buildings and other
permanent improvements are set back from the right-of-
way in the event that it is needed in the future.
PW Final Map for
Planning Area
PA-1
104. Substantial Conformance. The Final Maps shall be
substantially in conformance with the Approved Vesting
PW Final Maps
21
Tentative Map, unless otherwise modified by the
conditions contained herein.
105. Final Map Recordation. The Final Maps for Tract 8440,
Tract 8449 and Tract 8452 shall record prior to the
issuance of the first building permit within the associated
planning area.
PW 1st Building
Permit within
Each Planning
Area
106. Public Access Easements. The Developer shall
dedicate Public Access Easements (PAE) over the private
streets, private alleys and drive aisles as generally shown
on the Vesting Tentative Map and as required by the City
Engineer.
PW Final Map
107. Utility Easements. Public Utility Easements (PUE),
Sanitary Sewer Easements (SSE), Private Storm Drain
Easements (PSDE), Water Line Easements (WLE) and
Dublin San Ramon Services District Easements (DSRSD)
shall be established over all private streets and at other
locations within the subdivisions as appropriate.
PW Final Map
108. Sidewalk Easement. A Sidewalk Easement (SWE) shall
be dedicated along the project’s Dublin Boulevard, Central
Parkway and Gleason Drive frontages as generally shown
on the Vesting Tentative Map and as required by the City
Engineer.
PW Final Map
109. Easements Between Parcels. Reciprocal access and
utility easements and joint use parking easements
between the lots within PA-1 (Tract 8440) shall be
provided as required. The easements shall be subject to
the approval of the City Engineer.
PW Final Map for
Planning Area
PA-1
110. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The
respective Homeowners and Commercial Association
shall be formed by recordation of a declaration of
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions to govern use
and maintenance of the landscape features, decorative
pavement and other features within the public right of way
contained in the Agreement for Long Term
Encroachments; all open space and common area
landscaping; and all stormwater treatment measures. Said
declaration shall set forth the Association name, bylaws,
rules and regulations. The CC&Rs shall also contain a
provision that prohibits the amendment of those provisions
of the CC&Rs requested by City without the City’s
approval. The CC&Rs shall ensure that there is adequate
provision for the maintenance, in good repair and on a
regular basis, of all private streets, landscaping &
irrigation; decorative pavements; fences/gates; walls;
drainage and stormwater treatment facilities; lighting;
signs and other related improvements. The CC&Rs shall
also contain all other items required by these conditions.
The Developer shall submit a copy of the CC&Rs
document to the City for review.
PL, PW Final Map(s)
Approval
111. CC&Rs. Language shall be included in the CC&Rs for PA-
2 (Tract 8449) that restricts the community to residents 55
year and older. Amendments to this restriction shall be
agreed to by the City prior to any changes.
PW Final Map for
Planning Area
PA-2
22
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of June, 2020 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
Due to the size of this document, please use link
below to view Attachment 6.
Vesting Tentative Map
ORDINANCE NO. xx - 20
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND SCS
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY RELATED TO THE AT DUBLIN PROJECT
PLPA 2017-00061
(APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, and 985-0052-025)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. RECITALS
A. A request has been made by SCS Development Company to enter into a
Development Agreement with the City of Dublin for the property known as the At Dublin Project
site, which includes properties identified by Assessor Parcel Numbers 985-0051-004, 985-
0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, and 985-0052-025, an approximately 76.9 acre site; and
B. The Applicant, Shea Properties in partnership with SCS Development Company, is
requesting a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment , Planned
Development Rezoning (Stage 1 and Stage 2), Vesting Tentative Map, a Street Vacation and a
Development Agreement for the At Dublin Project. The proposed Project includes up to 566
residential units comprised of apartments, detached small-lot single-family homes and 55 and
older age restricted single-family homes, up to 240,000 square feet of retail commercial
development, and related infrastructure and landscape improvements. Requested land use
approvals include General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment,
Planned Development Rezoning (Stage 1 and Stage 2), Vesting Tentative Map Nos. 8440, 8449
and 8452, a Street Vacation, and a Development Agreement, among other related actions. These
planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the “At Dublin Project” or the
“Project;” and
C. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the CEQA
Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that certain projects be
reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
D. Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City prepared a Draft Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) dated July 2018, a Final EIR dated October 2018, and an Errata dated
January 2020, for the proposed Project, which reflected the City’s independent judgment and
analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and
E. The Draft EIR identified potentially significant environmental effects anticipated as
a result of the Project such as, aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal
resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, no ise, and transportation, most
of which can be substantially reduced through mitigation measures; and
F. The Draft EIR was circulated for 45 days for public comment from July 6, 2018 to
August 20, 2018. Comments received on the Draft EIR were reviewed and responded to, and the
Final EIR (that contains the Response to Comments) dated October 2018 was prepared; and
G. Following a public hearing on October 30, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 18-24, recommending denial of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendments and the entirety of the Project, consisting of up to 665 residential units comprised
of apartments, townhomes and detached small-lot single family homes and up to 400,500 sf of
commercial, related infrastructure, a public park and landscape improvements, which resolution
is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business
hours; and
H. On November 20, 2018, following a request from the Applicant, the City Council
continued the Project to an undetermined future date; and
I. In October 2019, the Applicant submitted a revised Project in response to public
comments, consisting of up to 566 residential units comprised of apartments, detached small -lot
single family homes and 55 and older age restricted single-family homes, up to 240,000 square
feet of retail commercial development, and related infrastructure and landscape improvements;
and
J. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, the City analyzed the revised
Project and determined that there was no new significant information, or substantially more
severe, significant environmental impact as a result of the revised Project, requiring recirculation
of the EIR; and
K. Following a public hearing on February 25, 2020, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 20-05, recommending denial of the proposed amendments to the General Plan
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the At Dublin project based on traffic impacts, pedestrian
and bicycle concerns, and the Project’s inconsistency with the longstanding vision for these
parcels, namely less housing and more commercial/retail serving as a “town center” and “gateway
to the city” with a walkable environment, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and
available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and
L. A Staff Report, dated June 16, 2020 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project, including the Development Agreement, for the City Council;
and
M. A public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement was held before the City
Council on June 16, 2020, for which public notice was given as provided by law; and
N. The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission,
including the Planning Commission’s reasons for its recommendation, the Agenda Statement, all
comments received in writing, and all testimony received at the public hearing; and
O. On June 16, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. xx-20 certifying the At
Dublin Project EIR and adopting CEQA findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project; and
P. The City Council did hear and use independent judgment and considered all said
reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth.
Section 2. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS
Therefore, on the basis of: (a) the foregoing Recitals which are incorporated herein; (b) the
City of Dublin General Plan; (c) the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; (d) the At Dublin Project EIR;
(e) the Staff Report; and (f) information in the entire record of proceeding for the Project, and on
the basis of the specific conclusions set forth below, the City Council finds and determines that:
1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land
uses and programs specified and contained in the City’s General Plan, and in the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan in that: (a) the Development Agreement incorporates the objectives, policies,
general land uses and programs in the General Plan and Specific Plan and does not amend or
modify them; and (b) the Project is consistent with the fiscal policies of the General Plan and
Specific Plan with respect to the provision of infrastructure and public services.
2. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the
regulations prescribed for, the land use districts in which the real property is located because the
Development Agreement does not amend the uses or regulations in the applicable land use
district.
3. The Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general
welfare, and good land use policies in that the Developer’s project will implement land use
guidelines set forth in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the General Plan as articulated in
Resolution No. xx-20, amending the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, adopted
by the City Council on June 16, 2020.
4. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety , and
general welfare in that the Developer’s proposed project will proceed in accordance with all the
programs and policies of the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and future Project
approvals and any Conditions of Approval.
5. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of
property or the preservation of property values in that the project will be consistent with the
General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and future Project approvals.
6. The Development Agreement specifies the duration of the agreement, the permitted
uses of the property, and the obligations of the Applicant. The Development Agreement contains
an indemnity and insurance clause requiring the Developer to indemnify and hold the City
harmless against claims arising out of the development process, including all legal fees and costs.
Section 3. APPROVAL
The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement (Exhibit A to the
Ordinance) and authorizes the City Manager to execute it.
Section 4. RECORDATION
Within ten (10) days after the Development Agreement is fully executed by all parties, the
City Clerk shall submit the Agreement to the County Recorder for recordation.
Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of
its passage. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause the Ordinance to be posted in at least
three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government
Code of the State of California.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this _____ day of
______, 2020 by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_____________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
City Clerk
1
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
CITY OF DUBLIN
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City Clerk
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Fee Waived per GC 27383
Space above this line for Recorder’s use
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE
CITY OF DUBLIN
AND
SCS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
FOR THE AT DUBLIN PROJECT
2
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this “Agreement” or this “Development
Agreement”) is made and entered into for reference purposes on this day of
, 2020, by and between the City of Dublin, a Municipal Corporation (hereafter
“City”) and AWARD HOMES, INC., a California corporation (“Award Homes”), SCS
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a California corporation (“SCS Development”), and
SANTA CLARA VALLEY HOUSING GROUP, INC., a California corporation (“SCV
Housing”) (Award Homes, SCS Development, and SCV Housing are collectively
referred to herein as “Developer”) pursuant to the authority of §§ 65864 et seq. of
the California Government Code and Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 8.56. City and
Developer are, from time-to-time, individually referred to in this Agreement as a
“Party,” and are collectively referred to as “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. California Government Code §§ 65864 et seq. (“Development
Agreement Statute”) and Chapter 8.56 of the Dublin Municipal Code (hereafter
“Chapter 8.56”) authorize the City to enter into a Development Agreement for the
development of real property with any person having a legal or equitable interest in
such property in order to establish certain development rights in such property.
B. Developer owns certain real property (the “Property”) consisting of
approximately 76.9 acres of land, as more particularly described in Exhibit A, Legal
Description of Property, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
C. Developer has applied for, and City has approved, various land use
approvals in connection with a mixed use project consisting of 240,000 square feet
of commercial development and 566 residential units (the “Project”), including,
without limitation, a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for
the At Dublin Project (Resolution No. ____ adopted on _____, 2020), a Stage 1 and Stage
2 Planned Development Rezoning and Development Plan for the At Dublin Project
(Ord. No. ___ adopted by the City Council on ______, 2020), Vesting Tentative Maps
8440, 8449, and 8452 for the At Dublin Project (Resolution No. ___ adopted on ______,
2020), and this Agreement (approved by the DA Approving Ordinance (defined
below)) (collectively the “Project Approvals”).
D. City desires the timely, efficient, orderly and proper development of the
Project.
E. City and Developer have reached agreement and desire to express
herein a Development Agreement that will facilitate development of the Project
subject to conditions set forth herein.
3
F. City has undertaken, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., hereinafter “CEQA”), the required
analysis of the environmental effects that would be caused by the Project and has
determined those feasible mitigation measures which will eliminate, or reduce to an
acceptable level, the adverse environmental impacts of the Project. The
environmental effects of the proposed development of the Property were analyzed
by the Final Environmental Impact Report (the “FEIR”) and Errata certified by City
on ______________. City has also adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting
program (the “MMRP”) to ensure that those mitigation measures incorporated as
part of, or imposed on, the Project are enforced and completed. Those mitigation
measures for which Developer is responsible are incorporated into, and required by,
the Project Approvals. City also has adopted findings of fact and statements of
overriding considerations for those adverse environmental impacts of the Project
that may not or cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level.
G. City has given the required notice of its intention to adopt this
Development Agreement and has conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to
Government Code Section 65867 and Chapter 8.56. As required by Government
Code Section 65867.5, City has found that the provisions of this Development
Agreement and its purposes are consistent with the goals, policies, standards and
land use designations specified in City’s General Plan.
H. On __, the City of Dublin Planning Commission, the initial hearing body
for purposes of development agreement review, recommended approval of this
Development Agreement pursuant to Resolution No. ___.
I. On , 2020, the City Council of the City of Dublin adopted Ordinance
No. ___ approving this Development Agreement (the “DA Approving Ordinance”).
The DA Approving Ordinance took effect on , 2020.
NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing recitals and in
consideration of the mutual promises, obligations and covenants herein contained,
City and Developer agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. Description of Property. The Property that is the subject of this
Agreement is described in Exhibit A. Upon the City’s vacation of the Northside Drive
PA1 Property (as defined in Section 8.1 herein) pursuant to Section 8.1, the
Northside Drive PA1 Property automatically shall become part of the Property and
City and Developer shall execute and record a Clarification (as defined in Section
9.4) of this Agreement in accordance with Section 9.4 to amend the legal description
4
of the Property attached hereto as Exhibit A to add such Northside Drive PA1
Property.
2. Interest of Developer. Developer has a legal interest in the Property in
that it is the owner of the Property.
3. Relationship of City and Developer. It is understood that this
Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by the
City and Developer and that neither City nor Developer is an agent of the other. The
City and Developer hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or
partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any
document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making the City
and Developer joint venturers or partners.
4. Effective Date and Term
4.1 Effective Date. The effective date of this Agreement (“Effective
Date”) is the date upon which the DA Approving Ordinance takes effect.
4.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the
Effective Date and shall continue for five years thereafter, unless said term is
otherwise extended or terminated as provided in this Agreement (as so extended or
terminated, the “Term”). In the event that any third-party lawsuit is filed challenging
the City’s issuance of the Project Approvals or its compliance with CEQA, the Term of
this Agreement shall be automatically extended for a duration equal to the time from
the filing of such lawsuit to the entry of a final order dismissing or otherwise finally
terminating such lawsuit, which duration shall include any appeals (“Litigation
Extension”). If required by one of the parties, the other party shall enter into a
Clarification pursuant to Section 9.4 below memorializing the length of such
Litigation Extension. This Agreement shall terminate with respect to any for sale
residential lot and such lot shall be released and no longer subject to this
Agreement, without the execution or recordation of any further document, when a
certificate of occupancy has been issued for the building(s) on such lot.
4.3 Optional Extension. Prior to the expiration of the Term of this
Development Agreement, as provided in Section 4.2, Developer may extend the Term
of the Development Agreement. To do so, Developer shall give City written notice at
least 90 days prior to the termination date of the Development Agreement. At the
time Developer provides such notice, Developer shall make a payment to City in the
amount of $200,000 (adjusted for inflation from the Effective Date using the CPI -U,
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area) for each year of extension requested under
this provision. Upon receipt of the notice and the contribution, the City Manager
5
shall approve the extension and shall notify the Developer in writing that the Term
of the Development Agreement has been automatically extended for an additional
time period equal to the time period requested by Developer under this provision,
commencing on the date the Development Agreement would otherwise have
terminated; provided Developer may exercise its option to extend the Development
Agreement no more than five times, for a maximum total Term of the Development
Agreement of ten years (plus any extensions pursuant to Sections 4.2 or 4.3 hereof).
Provided there is an extension period remaining, Developer may request the
extension for multiple years and provide the payment due for each year’s extension.
Each extension shall apply to the entire Property upon payment of one $200,000 (as
adjusted in accordance with this Section 4.3) per year extension payment, even if the
Property is owned by multiple Developers at that time.
4.4 Term of Project Approvals. The term of any Project Approvals (as
defined in Recital C) for the Property or any portion thereof, specifically including
without limitation the Vesting Tentative Tract Map shall be extended automatically
for the Term of this Agreement.
4.4.1 Termination of Agreement. In the event that this
Agreement is terminated prior to the expiration of the Term, the term of any Project
Approval and the vesting period for any final subdivision map approved as a Project
Approval shall be the term otherwise applicable to the approval.
5. Vested Rights/Use of the Property/Applicable Law/Processing
5.1 Right to Develop. Developer shall have the vested right to
develop the Project on the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of
(i) this Agreement, the Project Approvals (as and when issued), and any
amendments to any of them as shall, from time to time, be approved pursuant to this
Agreement, and (ii) the City’s ordinances, codes, resolutions, rules, regulations and
official policies governing the development, construction, subdivision, occupancy
and use of the Project and the Property including, without limitation, the General
Plan, the Dublin Municipal Code, and the Specific Plan, the permitted uses of the
Property, density and intensity of use of the Property and the maximum height, bulk
and size of proposed buildings, and the provisions for reservation or dedication of
land for public purposes that are in force and effect on the Effective Date of this
Agreement (collectively, “Applicable Law”). In exercising its discretion when acting
upon subsequent project approvals, City shall apply the Applicable Law as the
controlling body of law (within which Applicable Law such discretion shall be
exercised). Upon approval by the City, the Site Development Review approval for the
Project (“Project SDR”) shall become a Project Approval and shall become part of
6
the law Developer is vested into under this Agreement without the need to amend
this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything to the contrary herein,
any amendment to the Project Approvals shall not become part of the law Developer
is vested into under this Agreement unless an additional amendment of this
Agreement is entered into between Developer and City in accordance with this
Agreement. In the event that such amendments to the Project Approvals are sought
for any distinct portion of the Property or Project, such amendments shall not
require amendment of this Agreement with respect to any other portion of the
Property or Project, except to the extent set forth in such amendment.
5.2 Fees, Exactions, Dedications. The City shall not apply to the
Project any development impact fee or any application, processing or inspection fee
(collectively, “Fees”) that the City first enacts after the Effective Date. Except as
otherwise set forth in this Agreement, City and Developer agree that this Agreement
does not limit the City’s discretion to impose or require (a) payment of any fees in
connection with the issuance of any subsequent project approvals as necessary for
purposes of mitigating environmental and other impacts of the Project, (b)
dedication of any land, or (c) construction of any public improvement or facilities
(collectively “Exactions”). Except as specifically provided herein, nothing in this
Agreement shall limit the City’s ability to impose existing development impact Fees
at rates that are increased beyond the amounts in effect on the Effective Date or limit
Developer’s ability to challenge any such increases under state or local law.
5.3 Construction Codes. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section
5.1 above, to the extent Applicable Law includes requirements under the state or
locally adopted building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical and fire codes (collectively
the “Codes”), the Codes included shall be those in force and effect at the time
Developer submits its application for the relevant building, grading, or other
construction permits to City. In the event of a conflict between such Codes and the
Project Approvals, the Project Approvals shall, to the maximum extent allowed by
law, prevail. For construction of public infrastructure, the Codes applicable to such
construction shall be those in force and effect at the time of execution of an
improvement agreement between City and Developer pursuant to Chapter 9.16 of
the Dublin Municipal Code.
5.4 New Rules and Regulations. During the Term of this Agreement,
the City may apply new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and
official policies of the City to the Property which were not in forc e and effect on the
Effective Date only to the extent they are not in conflict with the vested rights
granted by the Applicable Law, the Project Approvals or this Agreement. In addition
to any other conflicts that may occur, each of the following new or m odified
7
ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or official policies shall be considered a
per se conflict with the Applicable Law:
5.4.1 Any application or requirement of such new or modified
ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or official policies that would (i) cause or
impose a substantial financial burden on, or materially delay development of the
Property as otherwise contemplated by this Agreement or the Project Approvals, (ii)
frustrate in a more than insignificant way the intent or purpose of the Project
Approvals or preclude compliance therewith including, without limitation, by
preventing or imposing limits or controls in the rate, timing, phasing or sequencing
of development of the Project; (iii) prevent or limit the processing or procuring of
subsequent project approvals; or (iv) reduce the density or intensity of use of the
Property as a whole, or otherwise requiring any reduction in the square footage of,
or total number of, proposed buildings, structures and other improvements, in a
manner that is inconsistent with or more restrictive than the limitations included in
this Agreement and the Project Approvals; and/or
5.4.2 If any of such ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or
official policies do not have general (City-wide) applicability.
5.5 Moratorium Not Applicable. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained herein, if a City ordinance, resolution, policy, directive, or other
measure is enacted or becomes effective, whether by action of the City or by
initiative, and if it imposes a building moratorium which affects all or any part of the
Project, City agrees that such ordinance, resolution or other measure shall not apply
to the Project, the Property, this Agreement or the Project Approvals unless the
building moratorium is imposed as part of a declaration of a local emergency or
state of emergency as defined in Government Code section 8558, provided that to
the extent a moratorium applies to all or any part of the Project then the Term shall
automatically be extended for a period of time equal to the period of the
moratorium.
5.6 Revised Application Fees. Notwithstanding section 5.2, any
existing application, processing and inspection fees that are revised during the Term
of this Agreement shall apply to the Project provided that (1) such fees have general
applicability and are consistent with State law limitations that processing fees not
exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which they are
charged; (2) the application of such fees to the Property is prospective; and (3) the
application of such fees would not prevent, impose a substantial financial burden on,
or materially delay development in accordance with this Agreement. By so agreeing,
8
Developer does not waive its rights to challenge the legality of any such application,
processing and/or inspection fees.
5.7 New Taxes. This Agreement shall not prohibit the application of
any subsequently enacted city-wide taxes to the Project provided that (1) the
application of such taxes to the Property is prospective, and (2) the application of
such taxes would not prevent development in accordance with this Agreement. By
so agreeing, Developer does not waive its rights to challenge the legality of any such
taxes, facially or as applied to its Project or Property, or to claim exemption from any
taxes to the extent allowed by law.
5.8 Development of the Project; Phasing, Timing. Since the California
Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo (1984) 37 Cal. 3d
465, that the failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing of development
resulted in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail
over such parties’ agreement, it is the Parties’ intent to cure that deficiency by
acknowledging and providing that this Agreement contains no requirements that
Developer must initiate or complete any action, including without limitation,
development of the Project within any period of time set by City. Nothing in this
Agreement is intended to create nor shall it be construed to create any affirmative
development obligations to develop the Project, or liability in Developer under this
Agreement if the development fails to occur. It is the intention of this provision that
Developer be able to develop the Property in accordance with its own time
schedules and the Project Approvals.
5.9 Project Phasing. The Project is divided for planning and phasing
purposes into planning areas (“Planning Areas” or “PA s”): PA 1, PA 2, PA 3, and PA-
4, as depicted on Exhibit C, Planning Areas. The Phasing Plan in the Stage 1 and
Stage 2 Development Plan (section 4) imposes restrictions on the issuance of
permits for the Project to ensure that the residential portions of the Project do not
wholly develop in advance of the retail/commercial portions (“PD Phasing
Requirements”). Notwithstanding Section 5.8, Developer agrees to comply with the
PD Phasing Requirements.
5.10 Processing. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to limit
the authority or obligation of City to hold necessary public hearings, nor to lim it the
discretion of City or any of its officers or officials with regard to subsequent project
approvals that require the exercise of discretion by City, provided that such
discretion shall be exercised consistent with the vested rights granted by this
Agreement, the Applicable Law and the Project Approvals.
9
6. Community Benefit.
6.1 Community Benefit Payment. Developer will make a cash
contribution to the City as a Community Benefit (the “Community Benefit
Payment”). The amount of the Community Benefit Payment is dependent on the
Developer’s election under subsection 7.3.1 to either construct 40 moderate income
units or pay a fee in lieu thereof: (a) $3,200,000 if elects to construct the units and
(b) $3,600,000 if the Developer elects to pay fees in lieu of constructing units. The
Community Benefit Payment shall be paid in equal installments with the first
installment due prior to the issuance of the first building permit for a residential
unit in the project (the “First Community Benefit Payment Date”) and the second
installment being paid within one year after the First Community Benefit Payment
Date. Each Community Benefit Payment in the amounts set forth above shall apply to
the entire Property even if the Property is owned by multiple Developers at that
time. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, Developer agrees that,
should it fail to make any payments when due, the City may withhold any residential
permits or approvals within the Project until the payment or payments have been
made, even if the rights to those permits and approvals are then held by Developer’s
successors.
7. Affordable Housing.
7.1 Units Required by Regulations. The Project includes 566
residential units. Pursuant to the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Chapter
8.68 of the Dublin Municipal Code) (the “Regulations”), developers of more than 20
residential units are required to set aside 12.5% of the units in the project as
affordable units as specified. Given the mix of for-sale and rental residential units in
the Project, the Developer’s inclusionary zoning obligation is 71 units broken down
as follows: 40 moderate income units, 22 low income, 9 very low income.
7.2 Alternative Compliance Authorized. Under the Regulations,
certain exceptions permit developers to satisfy the obligation other than through on-
site construction. For instance, part of this obligation can be satisfied through the
payment of a fee in-lieu of construction of units. In addition, developers can satisfy
their affordable housing obligations by, among other mechanisms, obtaining City
Council approval of an alternative method of complia nce that the City Council finds
meet the purposes of the Regulations.
7.3 Alternative Compliance for the Project. Developer shall satisfy its
71-unit affordable housing obligation through the following “alternative method of
compliance” under Section 8.68.040.E of the Regulations:
10
7.3.1 Developer, at its election, will either provide 40 moderate
income units (either for-sale or rental, or a combination thereof) on- or offsite or
pay a fee in-lieu thereof, either of which shall satisfy Developer’s obligation for 40
moderate income units. Developer shall make such election prior to the issuance of
the first residential building permit in the Project.
7.3.2 The City has the transferrable right to acquire a 1.33 acre
parcel referred to variously as 6541 and 6543 Regional Street and Alameda County
Assessor’s Parcel No. 941-1500-25 (“Affordable Housing Parcel”) at a nominal
price not to exceed $1000. Developer agrees to do either of the following, either of
which shall satisfy Developer’s obligation for 22 low income and 9 very low income
units:
(a) purchase the right to acquire the Affordable
Housing Parcel from the City at Affordable Housing Parcel’s fair market value and
either
(i) acquire the site and dedicate the Affordable
Housing Parcel to a non-profit housing developer or
(ii) transfer the right to acquire the Affordable
Housing Parcel to a non-profit housing developer.
or
(b) in the event that the City has acquired title to the
Affordable Housing Parcel, pay the City the Affordable Housing Parcel’s fair market
value.
The Parties agree that the fair market value of the Affordable
Housing Parcel is Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000). Developer shall purchase the
right to acquire the Affordable Housing Parcel by making a payment of Five Million
Dollars ($5,000,000) to the City within 180 days after the Effective Date (the
“Affordable Housing Payment”). The due date for payment of the Affordable
Housing Payment shall be tolled for the period of any Litigation Extension pursuant
to Section 4.2. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, Developer agrees
that, should it fail to make the Affordable Housing Payment when due, City may
withhold any residential permits or approvals within the Project until the payment
is made, even if the rights to those permits and approvals are then held by its
successors.
11
Prior to the issuance of the first residential building permit in
the Project, Developer shall either transfer ownership of the Affordable Housing
Parcel or the right to acquire the Affordable Housing Parcel to a non-profit housing
developer. Any such transfer shall be for no more than a nominal price. For the
purposes of this Agreement, a “nominal price” shall be any sales price that is $1000
or less (not including, and not limiting, the purchaser’s share of escrow fees, title
insurance costs, transfer taxes, prorated taxes and assessments and other customary
closing costs).
7.3.3 Satisfaction of City Requirements. Through its approval of
this Agreement, the City Council hereby finds that the “alternative method of
compliance” in this section 7.3 meets the purposes of the Regulations and will
promote the City’s affordability and Housing Element goals.
7.4 Additional Market-Rate Units. Any residential development on
the Property above 566 units shall be subject to the requirements of the Regulations,
notwithstanding the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations limitation to projects of 20 or
more units.
8. Dedications; Vacations.
8.1 Northside Drive. As part of this Agreement, the City shall take the
necessary actions to vacate Northside Drive. Provided that City has vacated
Northside Drive, Developer shall acquire the portion Northside Drive within
Planning Area 1 (the “Northside Drive PA1 Property”), as depicted in Exhibit D,
from the City for its “Fair Market Value” (determined in accordance with Section
8.3.1 herein), prior to the issuance of a building permit for Planning Area 1.
8.1.1 Determination of Fair Market Value. City shall have the
Northside Drive PA1 Property appraised and deliver to Developer a written notice
(the “Fair Market Value Notice”) setting forth the proposed fair market value of the
Northside Drive PA1 Property based on the appraisal (the “Fair Market Value”).
Developer, within ten business days after Developer’s receipt of the Fair Market
Value Notice, shall either (i) deliver to City written notice (the “Acceptance Notice”)
that Developer accepts the Fair Market Value set forth in the Fair Market Value
Notice, or (ii) if Developer disagrees with City’s determination of the Fair Market
Value, deliver to City written notice of rejection (the “Rejection Notice”). If
Developer fails to provide City with an Acceptance Notice or Rejection Notice within
such ten business day period, Developer shall be deemed to have delivered an
Acceptance Notice.
12
(b) If Developer delivers a Rejection Notice, Developer
and City shall meet and confer in good faith regarding the Fair Market Value. In the
event Developer delivers a Rejection Notice and the Parties are not able to agree in
writing on the Fair Market Value by the date that is twenty business days after City’s
delivery of the Fair Market Value Notice, then Developer may elect to prepare its
own appraisal.
(c) Upon completion of its appraisal, Developer shall
deliver City a written notice setting forth the proposed fair market value
(“Developer’s Fair Market Value Notice”). If the Parties are not able to agree in
writing on the Fair Market Value by the date that is twenty business days after the
delivery of the Developer’s Fair Market Value Notice, then within five business days
the Parties shall attempt to agree on an appraiser to determine the Fair Market
Value. If the Parties are unable to agree in that time, then each Party shall designate
an appraiser within five days thereafter. Should either Party fail to so designate an
appraiser within that time, then the appraiser designated by the other Party shall
determine the Fair Market Value. Should each of the Parties timely designate an
appraiser, then the two appraisers so designated shall appoint a third appraiser who
shall, acting alone, determine the Fair Market Value. Any third party appraiser
designated hereunder shall have an M.A.I. certification or equivalent with not less
than 5 years’ experience in the valuation of commercial property in Alameda County,
California.
(d) Within five business days following the selection of
the appraiser, Developer and City shall each submit in writing to the appraiser its
determination of the Fair Market Value (respectively, the “Developer
Determination” and the “City Determination”). Should either Party fail timely to
submit its Fair Market Value determination, then the determination of the other
Party shall be conclusive and binding on the Parties. The appraiser shall not disclose
to either party the Fair Market Value determination of the other party until the
expiration of that five business day period or, if sooner, the appraiser’s receipt of
both the Developer Determination and the City Determination.
(e) Within twenty days following the selection of the
appraiser and such appraiser’s receipt of the Developer Determination and the City
Determination, the appraiser shall determine whether the Fair Market Value
determined by Developer or by City more accurately reflects the fair market value of
the property. Accordingly, either the Developer Determination or the City
Determination shall be selected by the appraiser as the Fair Market Value. At any
time before the decision of the appraiser is rendered, either Party may, by written
notice to the other Party, accept the Fair Market Value submitted by the other Party,
13
in which event such value shall be deemed adopted as the agreed Fair Market Value.
The fees of the appraiser(s) shall be shared equally by the Parties.
8.2 Brannigan Extension. The Project Approvals require Developer to
construct an extension of Brannigan Street that would extend south of Dublin
Boulevard (the “Brannigan Extension”) and acquire the necessary land title and
interests from the adjoining property owner. Government Code section 66462.5
(“Section 66462.5”) provides that, under circumstances in which neither the City
nor the Developer has the necessary property interests to complete an improvement
required by the tentative map conditions, the City shall either (a) require Developer
to enter into an agreement that requires the completion of the improvement at such
time as it has acquired the interests or (b) acquire the necessary interests within
120 days of filing the map or waive the condition requiring the improvement.
Developer desires more certainty regarding when the improvements will be
completed, and the City desires that a diligent, good-faith effort be made by the
Developer to acquire the necessary interests with the agreement of the adjacent
property owner. Accordingly, the City agrees, upon Developer’s demonstration of
such diligent, good faith efforts to the satisfaction of the City Manager, to commence
the process described under Section 66462.5 within 90 days of providing such
evidence to the City Manager. All costs associated with acquisition shall be the
obligation of Developer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event of acquisition
of the Brannigan Extension right-of-way by City through negotiation or settlement
(rather than by final judgment in an eminent domain action), City shall not pay more
than ten percent (10%) above the fair market value of the Brannigan Extension
right-of-way (determined in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section
8.1.1 herein) without Developer’s prior written consent, in Developer’s sole
discretion.
9. Amendment or Cancellation.
9.1 Modification Because of Conflict with State or Federal Laws. The
Project and Property shall be subject to state and federal laws and regulations and
this Agreement does not create any vested right in state and federal laws and
regulations in effect on the Effective Date. In the event that state or federal laws or
regulations enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement prevent or preclude
compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement or require changes in
plans, maps or permits approved by the City, the parties shall meet and confer in
good faith in a reasonable attempt to modify this Agreement to comply with such
federal or state law or regulation. Any such amendment or suspension of the
Agreement shall be subject to approval by the City Council (in accordance with
14
Chapter 8.56). Each Party agrees to extend to the other its prompt and reasonable
cooperation in so modifying this Agreement or approved plans.
9.2 Amendment of Development Agreement by Mutual Consent . This
Agreement may be amended in writing from time to time by mutual consent of the
Parties hereto and in accordance with the procedures of the Development
Agreement Statute and Chapter 8.56. Review and approval of an amendment to this
Development Agreement shall be strictly limited to consideration of only those
provisions to be added or modified. No amendment, modification, waiver or change
to this Development Agreement or any provision hereof shall be effective for any
purpose unless specifically set forth in a writing that expressly refers to this
Development Agreement and signed by the duly authorized representatives of both
Parties.
9.2.1 Partial Amendment. When a Party seeking such an
amendment owns or has an equitable right to only a portion of the whole of the
Property (“Portion”), then such Party may only seek amendment of this Agreement
as directly relates to the Portion, and the Party owning any other Portion shall not be
required or entitled to be a signatory or to consent to an amendment that affects
only another Party's Portion.
9.3 Amendments. Any amendments to this Agreement which relate
to (a) the Term; (b) the permitted uses of the Property as provided in paragraph 5.1;
(c) provisions for “significant” reservation or dedication of land; (d) conditions,
terms, restrictions or requirements for subsequent discretionary actions; (e) an
increase in the density or intensity of use of the overall Project; (f) the maximum
height or size of proposed buildings; or (g) monetary contributions by Developer as
provided in this Agreement, shall be deemed an “Amendment” and shall require
notice or public hearing before the Planning Commission and the City Council before
the Parties may execute an amendment hereto. The City’s Public Works Director
shall determine whether a reservation or dedication is “significant” in the context of
the overall Project.
9.4 Clarifications. If and when, from time to time, during the Term of
this Agreement, City and Developer agree refinements and clarifications are
necessary or appropriate with respect to the details of performance of City and
Developer hereunder, City and Developer shall effectuate such clarifications through
letter agreements (each, a “Clarification”) approved by City and Developer, which,
after execution, shall be attached hereto as addenda and become a part hereof, and
may be further clarified from time to time as necessary with future approval by City
and Developer. No such Clarification shall constitute an amendment to this
15
Agreement requiring public notice or hearing. The City Manager or his or her
designee shall have the authority to determine on behalf of City whether a requested
clarification is of such a character to constitute an Amendment subject to Section 9.3
above or a Clarification subject to this Section 9.4. The City Manager shall have the
authority to review, approve, and execute Clarifications to this Agreement provided
that such Clarifications are not Amendments.
9.5 Cancellation by Mutual Consent. Except as otherwise permitted
herein, this Agreement may be canceled in whole or in part only by the mutual
consent of the parties or their successors in interest, in accordance with the
provisions of the Development Agreement Statute and Chapter 8.56. Any fees paid
pursuant to this Agreement prior to the date of cancellation shall be retained by the
City.
10. Annual Review.
10.1 Review Date. The annual review date for this Agreement shall be
between July 15 and August 15, 2021, and thereafter between each July 15 and
August 15 during the Term. Review shall be conducted in accordance with Section
8.56.140 of Chapter 8.56 and the provisions of this Section 11.
10.2 Initiation of Review. The City’s Community Development Director
shall initiate the annual review, as required under Section 8.56.140 of Chapter 8.56,
by giving to Developer thirty days’ prior written notice that the City intends to
undertake such review. Not less than thirty days after receipt of the notice,
Developer shall provide evidence to the Director, as reasonably determined
necessary by the Director, to demonstrate good faith compliance with the material
terms and provisions of the Agreement as to the whole or relevant portion of the
Property owned by Developer. The burden of proof by substantial evidence of
compliance is upon Developer.
10.3 Staff Reports. To the extent practical, the City shall deposit in the
mail to Developer a copy of all staff reports, and related exhibits concerning contract
performance at least five days prior to any public hearing addressing annual review.
10.4 Costs. Costs reasonably incurred by the City in connection with
the annual review shall be paid by Developer in accordance with the City’s schedule
of fees in effect at the time of review.
16
11. Default.
11.1 Remedies Available. Upon the occurrence of an event of default,
the parties may pursue all remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise
provided for in this Agreement or in the City’s regulations governing development
agreements, expressly including, but not limited to, the remedy of specific
performance of this Agreement.
11.2 Notice and Cure. Upon the occurrence of an event of default by
either party, the nondefaulting party shall serve written notice of such default upon
the defaulting party. Subject to a Mortgagee’s right to cure pursuant to Section 13.3
hereof, if the default is not cured by the defaulting party within thirty days after
service of such notice of default, the nondefaulting party may then commence any
legal or equitable action to enforce its rights under this Agreement; provided,
however, that if the default cannot be cured within such thirty day period, the
nondefaulting party shall refrain from any such legal or equitable action so long as
the defaulting party begins to cure such default within such thirty day period and
diligently pursues such cure to completion. Any notice of default given hereunder
shall specify in detail the nature of the failures in performance that the noticing
Party claims constitutes the event of default, all facts constituting substantial
evidence of such failure, and the manner in which such failure may be satisfactorily
cured in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. During the
time periods herein specified for cure of a failure of performance, the Party charged
therewith shall not be considered to be in default for purposes of (a) termination of
this Agreement, (b) institution of legal proceedings with respect thereto, or (c)
issuance of any approval with respect to the Project. Failure to give notice shall not
constitute a waiver of any default.
11.3 No Damages against City. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained herein, in no event shall damages be awarded against the City
upon an event of default or upon termination of this Agreement.
12. Estoppel Certificate. Either party may, at any time, and from time to
time, request written notice from the other party requesting such party to certify in
writing that, (a) this Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of
the Parties, (b) this Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in
writing, or if so amended, identifying the amendments, and (c) to the knowledge of
the certifying Party, the requesting Party is not in default in the performance of its
obligations under this Agreement, or if in default, to describe therein the nature and
amount of any such defaults. A Party receiving a request hereunder shall execute
and return such certificate within thirty days following the receipt thereof, or such
17
longer period as may reasonably be agreed to by the Parties. The City Manager of the
City shall be authorized to execute any certificate requested by Developer. Should
the Party receiving the request not execute and return such certificate within the
applicable period, this shall not be deemed to be a default, provided that such Party
shall be deemed to have certified that the statements in clauses (a) through (c) of
this Section are true, and any Party may rely on such deemed certification. City
acknowledges that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by Transferees (as
defined in Section 16.2) and Mortgagees (as defined in Section13.1).
13. Mortgagee Protection; Certain Rights of Cure.
13.1 Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and
senior to any lien placed upon the Property, or any portion thereof after the date of
recording this Agreement, including the lien for any deed of trust or mortgage
(“Mortgage”). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render
invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value,
but all the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon
and effective against any person or entity, including any deed of trust beneficiary or
mortgagee (“Mortgagee”) who acquires title to the Property, or any portion thereof,
by foreclosure, trustee’s sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise.
13.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the provisions of
Section 13.1 above, no Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this
Agreement, before or after foreclosure or a deed in lieu of foreclosure, to construct
or complete the construction of improvements, or to guarantee such construction of
improvements, or to guarantee such construction or completion, or to pay, perform
or provide any fee, dedication, improvements or other exaction or imposition;
provided, however, that a Mortgagee shall not be entitled to devote the Property to
any uses or to construct any improvements thereon other than those uses or
improvements provided for or authorized by the Project Approvals or by this
Agreement.
13.3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee and Extension of Right to Cure. If
the City receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default
given Developer hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, then the
City shall deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to Developer,
any notice given to Developer with respect to any claim by the City that Developer
has committed an event of default. Each Mortgagee shall have the right during the
same period available to Developer to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or
remedy, the event of default claimed set forth in the City’s notice. The City, through
its City Manager, may extend the thirty-day cure period provided in paragraph 12.2
18
for not more than an additional sixty days upon request of Developer or a
Mortgagee.
14. Severability. The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any
provisions, covenant, condition or term of this Agreement shall not render the other
provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal; provided that, if the unenforceability,
invalidation, or illegality would deprive either City or Developer of material benefits
derived from this Development Agreement, or make performance under this
Development Agreement unreasonably difficult, then City and Developer shall meet and
confer and shall make good faith efforts to amend or modify this Development
Agreement in a manner that is mutually acceptable to City and Developer.
15. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.
15.1 Prevailing Party. If the City or Developer initiates any action at
law or in equity to enforce or interpret the terms and conditions of this Agreement,
the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’' fees and costs
in addition to any other relief to which it may otherwise be entitled.
15.2 Third Party Challenge. If any person or entity not a party to this
Agreement initiates an action at law or in equity to challenge the validity of any the
Project Approvals (including this Agreement), the Parties shall cooperate in
defending such action. The Parties hereby agree to affirmatively cooperate in
defending said action and to execute a joint defense and confidentiality agreement in
order to share and protect information, under the joint defense privilege recognized
under applicable law. Developer shall bear its own costs of defense as a real party in
interest in any such action, and shall reimburse the City for all reasonable court
costs and attorneys’ fees expended by the City in defense of any such action or other
proceeding
16. Transfers and Assignments.
16.1 Agreement Runs with the Land. All of the provisions, rights,
terms, covenants, and obligations contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon
and inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective heirs, successors and
assignees, representatives, lessees, and all other persons acquiring the Property, or
any portion thereof, or any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any
manner whatsoever. All of the provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as
equitable servitude and shall constitute covenants running with the land pursuant
to applicable laws, including, but not limited to, Section 1468 of the Civil Code of the
State of California. Each covenant to do, or refrain from doing, some act on the
Property hereunder, or with respect to any owned property, (a) is for the benefit of
19
such properties and is a burden upon such properties, (b) runs with such properties,
and (c) is binding upon each party and each successive owner during its ownership
of such properties or any portion thereof, and shall be a benefit to and a burden
upon each party and its property hereunder and each other person succeeding to an
interest in such properties.
16.2 Right to Assign. Developer may wish to sell, transfer or assign all
or portions of its Property to other developers (each such other developer is
referred to as a “Transferee”). In connection with any such sale, transfer or
assignment to a Transferee, Developer shall have the right to sell, transfer or assign
to such Transferee any or all rights, interests and obligations of Developer arising
hereunder and that pertain to the portion of the Property being sold or transferred,
to such Transferee, provided, however, that: except as provided herein, no such
transfer, sale or assignment of Developer’s rights, interests and obligations
hereunder shall occur without prior written notice to City and approval by the City
Manager, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or
delayed.
16.3 Approval and Notice of Sale, Transfer or Assignment . The City
Manager shall consider and decide on any transfer, sale or assignment of this
Agreement within ten days after Developer’s notice, provided all necessary
documents, certifications and other information are provided to the City Manager to
enable the City Manager to determine whether the proposed Transferee can perform
Developer’s obligations hereunder. Notice of any such approved sale, transfer or
assignment (which includes a description of all rights, interests and obligations that
have been transferred and those which have been retained by Developer) shall be
recorded in the official records of Alameda County, in a form acceptable to the City
Manager, concurrently with such sale, transfer or assignment.
16.4 Considerations for Approval of Sale, Transfer or Assignment. In
considering the request, the City Manager shall base the decision upon the proposed
assignee's reputation, experience, financial resources and access to credit and
capability to successfully carry out the development of the Property to completion.
The City Manager's approval shall be for the purposes of: a) providing notice to City;
b) assuring that all obligations of Developer are allocated as between Developer and
the proposed purchaser, transferee or assignee as provided by this Agreement; and
c) assuring City that the proposed purchaser, transferee or assignee is financially
capable of performing Developer's obligations hereunder not withheld by Developer.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Manager’s approval shall not be required for
an assignment to an entity or entities controlling Developer, controlled by Developer,
or under common control with Developer, provided that Developer owns and
20
controls no less than fifty percent of such successor entity or controls the day-to-day
management decisions of such successor entity.
16.5 Release upon Transfer. Upon the transfer, sale, or assignment of
all of Developer’s rights, interests and obligations hereunder pursuant to Section
14.2 of this Agreement, Developer shall be automatically released from the
obligations under this Agreement, with respect to the Property transferred, sold, or
assigned, arising subsequent to the date of City Manager approva l of such transfer,
sale, or assignment; provided, however, that if any transferee, purchaser, or assignee
approved by the City Manager expressly assumes all of the rights, interests and
obligations of Developer under this Agreement, Developer shall be rel eased with
respect to all such rights, interests and assumed obligations. In any event, the
transferee, purchaser, or assignee shall be subject to all the provisions hereof and
shall provide all necessary documents, certifications and other necessary
information prior to City Manager approval.
16.6 Developer’s Right to Retain Specified Rights or Obligations.
Developer may withhold from a sale, transfer or assignment of this Agreement or
any portion of the Property transferred, certain rights, interests and/or obligations
which Developer wishes to retain, provided that Developer specifies such rights,
interests and/or obligations in a written document to be appended to this
Agreement and recorded with the Alameda County Recorder prior to the sale,
transfer or assignment of the Property. Developer’s purchaser, transferee or
assignee shall then have no interest or obligations for such rights, interests and
obligations and this Agreement shall remain applicable to Developer with respect to
such retained rights, interests and/or obligations.
16.7 Partial Assignment. In the event of a partial Transfer, City shall
cooperate with Developer and any proposed Transferee to allocate rights and
obligations under the Development Agreement and t he Project Approvals among the
retained Property and the transferred Property. Provided that City receives a copy
of the assignment and assumption agreement by which Transferee assumes the
Transferred rights and obligations associated with the transferred Property: (i) any
subsequent breach with respect to the Transferred obligations shall not constitute a
breach with respect to the retained rights and obligations of such transferor (or any
other Transferee) under the Development Agreement; (ii) and any subsequent
breach with respect to the retained obligations of transferor (or any other
Transferee) shall not constitute a breach with respect to the Transferred rights and
obligations of a Transferee under the Development Agreement. The transferor and
the Transferee each shall be solely responsible for the reporting and annual review
requirements relating to the portion of the Property owned by such
21
transferor/Transferee. Any amendment to the Development Agreement between
City and a transferor or Transferee shall only affect the portion of the Property
owned by such transferor or Transferee.
17. Bankruptcy. The obligations of this Agreement shall not be
dischargeable in bankruptcy.
18. Indemnification. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless the City, and its elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions,
officers, agents, employees, and representatives from any and all claims, costs
(including legal fees and costs) and liability for any personal injury or property
damage which may arise directly or indirectly as a result of any actions or inactions
by Developer, or any actions or inactions of Developer’s contractors, subcontractors,
agents, or employees in connection with the construction, improvement, operation,
or maintenance of the Project, provided that Developer shall have no
indemnification obligation with respect to negligence or wrongful conduct of the
City, its contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees or with respect to the
maintenance, use or condition of any improvement after the time it has been
dedicated to and accepted by the City or another public entity (except as provided in
an improvement agreement or maintenance bond). If City is named as a party to any
legal action, City shall cooperate with Developer, shall appear in such action and
shall not unreasonably withhold approval of a settlement otherwise acceptable to
Developer.
19. Insurance.
19.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. During the Term of this
Agreement, Developer shall maintain in effect a policy of commercial general
liability insurance with a per-occurrence combined single limit of not less than
$1,000,000. The policy so maintained by Developer shall name the City as an
additional insured and shall include either a severability of interest clause or cross -
liability endorsement. City and Developer agree that such insurance may include
alternative risk management programs, including self-insurance or a combination of
self-insurance and insurance, provided that such alternative risk management
programs provide protection equivalent to that specified under this Agreement.
19.2 Workers Compensation Insurance. During the Term of this
Agreement Developer shall maintain Worker’s Compensation insurance for all
persons employed by Developer for work at the Project site. Developer shall require
each contractor and subcontractor similarly to provide Worker’s Compensation
22
insurance for its respective employees. Developer agrees to indemnify the City for
any damage resulting from Developer’s failure to maintain any such insurance.
19.3 Evidence of Insurance. Prior to issuance of any permits for the
Project, including grading permits, Developer shall furnish the City satisfactory
evidence of the insurance required in Sections 19.1 and 19.2 and evidence that the
carrier is required to give the City at least fifteen days prior written notice of the
cancellation or reduction in coverage of a policy unless replaced with similar
coverage. The insurance shall extend to the City, its elective and appointive boards,
commissions, officers, agents, employees and representatives and to Developer
performing work on the Project.
20. Sewer and Water. Developer acknowledges that it must obtain water
and sewer permits from the Dublin San Ramon Services District (“DSRSD”) which is
another public agency not within the control of the City. City agrees that it shall not
take any action with DSRSD opposing Developer’s efforts to reserve water and sewer
capacity sufficient to serve the Project described herein.
21. Notices. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement
shall be in writing. Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as
follows:
City Manager
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Fax No. (925) 833-6651
With copies to: City Attorney
Notices required to be given to Developer shall be addressed as
follows:
Daniel M. Ikeda, Chief Financial Officer
SCS Development Co
404 Saratoga Ave. Suite 100
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Phone No.: 408-985-6000
Fax No.: 408-985-6050
Email: dikeda@scsdevelopment.com
23
A Party may change address by giving notice in writing to the other Party and
thereafter all notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. Notices
shall be deemed given and received upon personal delivery, or if mailed, upon the
expiration of 48 hours after being deposited in the United States Mail. Notices may
also be given by overnight courier, which shall be deemed given the following day or
by facsimile transmission or email, which shall be deemed given upon verification of
receipt.
22. Agreement is Entire Understanding. This Agreement, including its
exhibits, constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties and
supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the Parties with
respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof.
23. Exhibits. The following documents are referred to in this Agreement
and are attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full:
Exhibit A Legal Description of Property
Exhibit B Impact Fee Schedule
Exhibit C Planning Areas
Exhibit D Northside Drive PA1 Propertuy
24
24. Recitals. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and are made a
part hereof.
25. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by each Party on a
separate signature page, and when the executed signature pages are combined, shall
constitute one single instrument. This Agreement is executed in two duplicate
originals, each of which is deemed to be an original.
26. Recordation. The City shall record a copy of this Agreement within ten
days following execution by all Parties. Thereafter, if this Agreement is terminated,
modified or amended, the City Clerk shall record notice of such action with the
Alameda County Recorder.
27. No Third Party Beneficiaries. Nothing contained in this Agreement is
intended to or shall be deemed to confer upon any person, other than the Parties
and their respective permitted successors and assigns, any rights or remedies
hereunder.
28. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in
accordance with the laws of the State of California.
29. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence for each provision of
this Agreement for which time is an element.
30. Further Actions and Instruments. Each Party to this Development
Agreement shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other
Party and take all actions necessary to ensure that the Parties receive the benefits of
this Development Agreement, subject to satisfaction of the conditions of this
Development Agreement. Upon the request of any Party, the other Party shall
promptly execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and file
or record such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be
reasonably necessary under the terms of this Development Agreement to carry out
the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this Development Agreement or to evidence
or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Development Agre ement.
31. Section Headings. Section headings in this Development Agreement
are for convenience only and are not intended to be used in interpreting or
construing the terms, covenants or conditions of this Development Agreement.
32. Construction of Agreement. This Development Agreement has been
reviewed and revised by legal counsel for both Developer and City, and no
25
presumption or rule that ambiguities shall be construed against the drafting Party
shall apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this Development Agreement.
33. Authority. The persons signing below represent and warrant that they
have the authority to bind their respective Party and that all necessary board of
directors’, shareholders’, partners’, city councils’, or other approvals have been
obtained.
34. Non-Intended Prevailing Wage Requirements. Except for public
improvements constructed by the Developer and to be dedicated to the City (which
are subject to conditions of Approval 95, Compliance), nothing in this Development
Agreement shall in any way require, or be construed to require, Developer to pay
prevailing wages with respect to any work of construction or improvement within
the Project (a “Non-Intended Prevailing Wage Requirement”). But for the
understanding of the Parties as reflected in the immediately preceding sentence, the
Parties would not have entered into this Development Agreement based upon the
terms and conditions set forth herein. Developer and City have made every effort in
reaching this Development Agreement to ensure that its te rms and conditions will
not result in a Non-Intended Prevailing Wage Requirement. These efforts have been
conducted in the absence of any applicable existing judicial interpretation of the
recent amendments to the California prevailing wage law. If, despite such efforts,
any provision of this Development Agreement shall be determined by any court of
competent jurisdiction to result in a Non Intended Prevailing Wage Requirement,
such determination shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any provision
hereof; provided, however, that the Parties hereby agree that, in such event, this
Development Agreement shall be reformed such that each provision of this
Development Agreement that results in the Non-Intended Prevailing Wage
Requirement will be removed from this Development Agreement as though such
provisions were never a part of the Development Agreement, and, in lieu of such
provision(s), replacement provisions shall be added as a part of this Development
Agreement as similar in terms to such removed provision(s) as may be possible and
legal, valid and enforceable but without resulting in the Non-Intended Prevailing
Wage Requirement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed as of the date and year first above wr itten.
26
CITY OF DUBLIN
By: _____________________________
Linda Smith, City Manager
Attest:
__________________________
Caroline Soto, City Clerk
Approved as to form
__________________________
John Bakker, City Attorney
DEVELOPER
Award Homes, Inc., a California corporation
By: __________________________
Name: _______________________
Its: __________________________
SCS Development Company, a California
Corporation
By: __________________________
Name: _______________________
Its: __________________________
Santa Clara Valley Housing Group, Inc., a
California corporation
By: __________________________
Name: _______________________
Its: __________________________
(NOTARIZATION ATTACHED)
3453604.8
CITY OF DUBLIN
IMPACT FEES
FY 2019-20
The following pages contain a summary of the adjustments for the fees for Fiscal Year 2019-20.
The new fee rates become effective July 1, 2019, with the exception of the Freeway Interchange
Fee which becomes effective September 1, 2019
• Public Facilities Impact Fee
• Fire Impact Fee
• Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (EDTIF)
• Western Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (WDTIF)
• Dublin Crossing Transportation Fee
• Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee (TVTD)
• Noise Mitigation Fee
• Freeway Interchange Fee
• Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee
• Dublin Ranch W est Side Storm Drain Benefit District
• Dublin Ranch East Side Storm Drain Benefit District
Page 2 of 6
PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT FEE
RESIDENTIAL
Single Family
& Townhome
Other
Multi
Family
Senior
Housing
Second
Unit
Aquatic Center $353 $216 $128 $216
Civic Center 1,567 957 569 957
Community Buildings 3,929 2,399 1,428 2,399
Community Nature Parks, Improvements 301 184 109 184
Community Parks, Improvements 4,757 2,903 1,729 2,903
Community Parks, Land 8,509 5,194 3,093 5,194
Libraries 282 173 102 173
Neighborhood Parks, Improvements 2,781 1,697 1,012 1,697
Neighborhood Parks, Land 3,832 2,339 1,393 2,339
TOTAL FEE $26,311 $16,062 $9,563 $16,062
NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial Office Industrial
Senior
Service
Facility
Aquatic Center $12 $16 $6 $5
Civic Center 366 492 183 149
Community Buildings 148 199 75 61
Comm. Nature Parks, Improve. 51 71 26 21
Community Parks, Improve. 827 1,110 411 337
Community Parks, Land 1,481 1,990 737 605
Libraries 54 74 28 23
TOTAL FEE (per 1,000 s.f.) $2,939 $3,952 $1,466 $1,201
FIRE IMPACT FEE
RESIDENTIAL
Single-Family
& Townhome
Other Multi
Family
Senior
Housing
Second
Unit
Per Unit $339 $207 $123 $207
NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial
Office Industrial
Senior
Service
Facility
Land-Use Type (Per 1,000 s.f.) $80 $107 $39 $32
Page 3 of 6
EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
RESIDENTIAL
OUTSIDE
TRANSIT CENTER
Low
(6.0 Units per
acre or less)
Medium
(6.1-14
units/acre)
Medium
High
(14.1-25
units/acre)
High
(25.1+
units/acre)
Second
Unit
EDTIF Cat. 1 $8,758 $8,758 $6,133 $5,256 $5,256
EDTIF Cat. 2 $2,254 $2,254 $1,579 $1,352 $1,352
EDTIF Cat. 2 (BART
Garage) 790 790 553 474 474
EDTIF Cat. 2 $3,044 $3,044 $2,132 $1,826 $1,826 TOTAL FEE $11,802 $11,802 $8,265 $7,082 $7,082
RESIDENTIAL
INSIDE
TRANSIT CENTER
Low
(6.0 Units per
acre or less)
Medium
(6.1-14
units/acre)
Medium
High
(14.1-25
units/acre)
High
(25.1+
units/acre)
Second
Unit
EDTIF Cat. 1 $8,758 $8,758 $6,133 $3,999 $3,999
EDTIF Cat. 2 $2,254 $2,254 $1,579 $1,015 $1,015
TOTAL FEE $11,012 $11,012 $7,712 $5,014 $5,014
NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial Office Industrial
EDTIF Cat. 1 (Per 1,000 s.f.) $837 $837 $837
EDTIF Cat. 2 (Per 1,000 s.f.) 227 227 227
TOTAL FEE(1) $1,064 $1,064 $1,064
(1) Fee is calculated based on Fee Rate x Land Use Measurement Unit x Trip Rate Multiplier.
WESTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
RESIDENTIAL
Low
(6.0 Units per
acre or less)
Medium
(6.1-14
units/acre)
Medium High
(14.1-25
units/acre)
High
(25.1+
units/acre)
Second
Unit
Per Unit (1) $5,870 $5,870 $3,639 $3,052 $3,052
NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial Office Industrial
Land-Use Type (Per 1,000 s.f.)(1) (2) (3) $5,870 $5,870 $5,870
(1) Project locates within the boundaries of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area is eligible
for a trip reduction factor of 23% if the project meets certain design criteria.
(2) Fee is calculated based on Fee Rate x Land Use Measurement Unit x Trip Rate Multiplier
(3) Project includes a retail use is eligible for a 35% trip reduction factor to the trips associated
with the retail use.
Page 4 of 6
EASTERN DUBLIN FREEWAY INTERCHANGE FEE (City of Pleasanton)
FEES EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2018 - AUGUST 31, 2019
RESIDENTIAL
Low
Density
(6.0 Units per
acre or less)
Medium
Density
(6.1-14
units/acre)
Medium
High
Density
(14.1-25
units/acre)
High
Density
(25.1+
units/acre)
Second
Unit
Base Fee $214.60 $214.60 $150.22 $128.76 $128.76
Escalator 128.13 128.13 89.69 76.87 76.87
TOTAL FEE $342.73 $342.73 $239.91 $205.63 $205.63
NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial Office Industrial
Base Fee (Per 1,000 sf) $21.46 $21.46 $21.46
Escalator (Per 1,000 sf) 12.80 12.80 12.80
TOTAL FEE (1) $34.26 $34.26 $34.26
FEES EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2019 - AUGUST 31, 2020
RESIDENTIAL
Low
Density
(6.0 Units per
acre or less)
Medium
Density
(6.1-14
units/acre)
Medium
High
Density
(14.1-25
units/acre)
High
Density
(25.1 +
units/acre)
Second
Unit
Base Fee $214.60 $214.60 $150.22 $128.76 $128.76
Escalator 135.85 135.85 95.10 81.50 81.50
TOTAL FEE $350.45 $350.45 $245.32 $210.26 $210.26
NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial Office Industrial
Base Fee (Per 1,000 sf) $21.46 $21.46 $21.46
Escalator (Per 1,000 sf) 13.57 13.57 13.57
TOTAL FEE (1) $35.03 $35.03 $35.03
(1) Total fee calculation is based on EDTIF trip rate of Land-Use Type.
Page 5 of 6
DUBLIN CROSSING TRANSPORTATION FEE
RESIDENTIAL
Low
(6.0 Units per
acre or less)
Medium
(6.1-14
units/acre)
Medium
High
(14.1-25
units/acre)
High
(25.1+
units/acre)
Second
Unit
Per Unit $9,476 $9,476 $6,633 $5,685 $5,685
NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial Office Industrial
TOTAL FEE (Per 1,000 s.f.) (1) $838 $838 $838
(1) Fee is calculated based on Fee Rate x Land Use Measurement Unit x Trip Rate Multiplier.
TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE
RESIDENTIAL Single Family Multi Family
Second
Unit
Per Unit $4,650.56 $3,203.48 $3,203.48
NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial Office Industrial
Other
(per average AM/PM
peak hour trip)
Land-Use Type (Per s.f.) $3.44 $7.90 $4.60 $5,167.37
EASTERN DUBLIN NOISE MITIGATION FEE
RESIDENTIAL
Low
(6.0 Units
per acre or
less)
Medium
(6.1-14
units/acre)
Medium High
(14.1-25
units/acre)
High
(25.1+
units/acre)
Second
Unit
Per Unit $4.74 $4.74 $3.32 $2.85 $2.85
NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial Office Industrial
Land-Use Type (Per 1,000 s.f.) $23.71 $7.11 $2.37
Page 6 of 6
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN LIEU FEE
RESIDENTIAL (Per Unit) $197,253
NON-RESIDENTIAL Industrial Office
Research &
Development Retail
Services &
Accommodations
Land-Use Type (Per s.f.) $0.56 $1.45 $0.95 $1.18 $0.49
STORM DRAIN BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS
1. DUBLIN RANCH WEST SIDE STORM DRAIN BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
Parcel Owner / Reference
Balance
(07/01/2019)
Parcel #2 Dublin Land Co. $149,592.68
Parcel #3 Dublin Land Co. 193,418.27
Parcel #4 Dublin Land Co. 95,522.02
2. DUBLIN RANCH EAST SIDE STORM DRAIN BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
Parcel
Original Assessment Report
Owner / Reference
Balance
(07/01/2019)
Parcel #3 Chen $634,511.81
Parcel #4 EBJ Partners 7,412.88
Parcel #5 Anderson 2,695.62
Parcel #7 Croak 555,680.77
Parcel #8 Anderson 267,162.86
Parcel #9 Righetti 319,876.60
Parcel #10 Branaugh 256,380.48
Parcel #11 Monte Vista 62,672.46
Fiscal and Employment Impacts of the Proposed
At Dublin Project to the
City of Dublin
Prepared for:
City of Dublin
Prepared by:
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
June 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. The Site 1
B. Proposed Land Use 2
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
A. Recurring Net Annual General Fund Fiscal Impact upon Buildout 3
B. Recurring Net Annual General Fund Fiscal Impact from Residential Component 4
C. One-time Construction-related General Fund Revenues 5
D. On-site Jobs to be Created by the Construction and Operation of the Project 5
III. FISCAL IMPACTS 7
A. Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues upon Buildout 7
B. Recurring Annual General Fund Expenditures upon Buildout 8
C. Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues from Residential Component 10
D. Recurring Annual General Fund Expenditures from Residential Component 11
E. One-time Construction-related General Fund Revenues to City of Dublin 12
IV. METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS 13
V. LIMITING CONDITIONS 18
VI. APPENDIX TABLES 19
Exhibits
Exhibit 1. The Site and its Context ............................................................................................. 1
Exhibit 2. Land Use Program (October 2019) ............................................................................. 2
Exhibit 3. Site Plan (October 2019) ............................................................................................ 2
Exhibit 4. Recurring Net Annual General Fund Fiscal Impact upon Buildout .............................. 3
Exhibit 5. Recurring Total Annual General Fund Fiscal Impact upon Buildout ............................ 4
Exhibit 6. Recurring Net Annual Fiscal Impact from Residential Component .............................. 4
Exhibit 7. Recurring Total Annual Fiscal Impact from Residential Component............................ 5
Exhibit 8. One-time General Fund Construction Related Revenues ........................................... 5
Exhibit 9. Direct Construction and Permanent Jobs ................................................................... 6
Exhibit 10. Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues upon Buildout ........................................ 8
Exhibit 11. Composition of Total Annual General Fund Revenues upon Buildout ....................... 8
Exhibit 12. Recurring Annual General Fund Expenditures upon Buildout ................................... 9
Exhibit 13. Composition of Total Annual General Fund Expenditures upon Buildout .................. 9
Exhibit 14. Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues- Residential Only..................................10
Exhibit 15. Composition of Total Annual General Fund Revenues- Residential Only ................10
Exhibit 16. Recurring Annual General Fund Expenditures- Residential Only .............................11
Exhibit 17. Composition of Total Annual General Fund Expenditures- Residential Only ............11
Exhibit 18. One-time General Fund Sales/Use Tax Revenues from Construction .....................12
Exhibit 19. One-time Initial Property Transfer Tax Revenues ....................................................12
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 1
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx
I. INTRODUCTION
The following report has been prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) for the City
of Dublin (the City). The report presents the estimated fiscal impacts that the proposed project,
At Dublin (the Project), will have on the City, based on the development application submitted in
October 2019. The findings of this report will be used to determine if the Project meets the City’s
fiscal neutrality requirement for projects that are applying for development entitlements. The
findings may also potentially be used to establish the terms of a Development Agreement and
Municipal Services Agreement with the applicant. The principal objectives of the analysis are to:
Estimate the recurring annual fiscal impacts of the entire proposed Project upon build-
out, and the recurring annual fiscal impacts of only the residential component; and
Estimate the magnitude of construction-related tax revenues that will be generated by
the Project.
A. The Site
The Project will be located on 76.9 acres bounded by Tassajara Road, Brannigan Street,
Interstate 580, and a sliver above Gleason Drive on the north side of Interstate 580. The subject
site is currently vacant and the uses in the immediate area primarily include single and
multifamily residential, restaurants, retail, elementary schools, office, and parks.
Exhibit 1. The Site and its Context
Source: Base Map from Google Earth (2018)
Site
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 2
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx
B. Proposed Land Use
The proposed Project is spread across 76.9 acres and includes approximately 240,000 SF of
commercial development and 566 residential units. The commercial development includes
120,000 SF of retail and entertainment uses, 45,000 SF of medical office uses, and an upscale
extended stay hotel with approximately 150 rooms. The residential development includes 240
multifamily apartments and 326 single family detached units. The single family detached units
are comprised of 130 conventional units and 196 units designated for residents over the age of
55. The proposed land use program and the proposed site plan are presented in Exhibit 2 and
Exhibit 3, respectively.
Exhibit 2. Land Use Program (October 2019)
Land Use Designation Acres1 Units Sq. Ft. Rooms
Commercial 19.2 0 240,000 150
Retail, Restaurants, and Services 54,000 Medical Office 45,000 Movie Theater 66,000 Hotel 75,000 150
Multi-Family Apartments 4.0 240 Single Family Detached 51.2 326 Single Family: Cluster 15
Single Family: Traditional 115
Age-Restricted (55+): Duet 99 Age-Restricted (55+): Cluster 97 Parks/Open Space 2.5
Total Project 76.9 566 240,000 150
See Appendix 3A for details.
1 Acreage by land use estimated by KMA based on site plan.
Exhibit 3. Site Plan (October 2019)
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 3
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
It is estimated that the built-out Project will annually generate a fiscal surplus to the City of
Dublin. The key findings of the analysis are summarized below.
The Project will annually generate approximately $1.99 million of tax revenues to City’s
General Fund, net of service costs. Given that the property generated only a minor
amount of property tax revenue prior to the applicant’s purchase, $1.98 million of the
estimated future surplus represents additional annual net revenues to the City.
The residential component (independent of the commercial component) is also fiscally
positive and will annually generate approximately $746,000 of net tax revenues to the
City.
The one-time construction-related revenues to be generated to by the Project are
estimated to exceed $1.06 million.
A. Recurring Net Annual General Fund Fiscal Impact upon Buildout
The Project upon buildout is anticipated to generate annual General Fund revenues of
approximately $2.92 million. Annual General Fund expenditures to provide services such as
police protection, fire protection, infrastructure maintenance and other general city services are
anticipated to approximate $927,000. Net of municipal service costs, the Project is anticipated to
annually generate a net annual fiscal surplus of approximately $1.99 million. Excluding the
amount of property taxes that the City received in FY 2017/18 (which reflects the period prior to
the development team’s purchase of the site for the proposed project), the project will generate
approximately $1.98 million of net new tax revenues to the City.
Exhibit 4. Recurring Net Annual General Fund Fiscal Impact upon Buildout
Total Annual
Impacts
Net New
Annual Impacts
Total Annual General Fund Revenues $2,917,000 $2,908,000
Total Annual General Fund Expenditures ($927,000) ($927,000)
Net Annual General Fund Fiscal Surplus/(Deficit) upon Buildout $1,990,000 $1,981,000
See Appendix 1 for details
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 4
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx
Exhibit 5. Recurring Total Annual General Fund Fiscal Impact upon Buildout
B. Recurring Net Annual General Fund Fiscal Impact from Residential Component
The residential component of the Project is anticipated to generate annual General Fund
revenues of approximately $1.54 million and annual General Fund expenditures of
approximately $789,000. Thus, the residential component is expected to generate a net annual
fiscal surplus of approximately $746,000. Excluding the residential component’s share of the
property taxes that the City received in FY 2017/18, net new tax revenues are estimated to total
$739,000.
Exhibit 6. Recurring Net Annual Fiscal Impact from Residential Component
Total Annual
Impacts
Net New
Annual Impacts
Total Annual General Fund Revenues $1,535,000 $1,528,000
Total Annual General Fund Expenditures ($789,000) ($789,000)
Net Annual Fiscal Surplus/(Deficit) from Residential Component $746,000 $739,000
See Appendix 22 for details
$2,917,000
($927,000)
$1,990,000
($1,500,000)
($1,000,000)
($500,000)
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
Revenues Expenditures Net Impact
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 5
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx
Exhibit 7. Recurring Total Annual Fiscal Impact from Residential Component
C. One-time Construction-related General Fund Revenues
KMA has estimated that the materials purchased for the construction of the Project will yield
approximately $770,000 of use tax revenues to the City’s General Fund. Additionally, initial
property transfer tax revenues from the land sales transactions are estimated to total $70,000,
and property transfer tax revenues from the initial sales of for-sale residential units are
estimated to total $222,000. The aggregate of one-time construction-related General Fund
revenues are estimated to total $1.06 million.
Exhibit 8. One-time General Fund Construction Related Revenues
Revenue Source $ Total
Sales/Use Tax Generated from Construction Material Purchases $770,000
Initial Property Transfer Tax from Land Sale Transactions $70,000
Initial Property Transfer Tax from For-Sale Units $222,000
Total One-time Construction Related Revenues $1,062,000
See Appendix 1 for details.
D. On-site Jobs to be Created by the Construction and Operation of the Project
KMA has estimated the number of full-time equivalent direct construction jobs and permanent
jobs to be created by the Project. As shown in Exhibit 9, it is estimated that the construction of
the Project will generate 2,010 full-time equivalent construction jobs, assuming a one-year
construction period. The businesses are estimated to create 570 full-time equivalent permanent
employees. The actual job count will vary, depending on the number of part time versus full-time
$1,535,000
($789,000)
$746,000
($1,000,000)
($500,000)
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
Revenues Expenditures Net Impact
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 6
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx
positions. These job estimates reflect the direct impacts of the Project and do not include the
additional jobs that will be indirectly supported by the suppliers of construction materials, the on-
going purchases of the Project’s businesses, and the on-going expenditures by residents and
employees.
Exhibit 9. Direct Construction and Permanent Jobs
Full-time Equivalent Jobs
Construction Jobs (one-year period) 2,010
Permanent On-site Jobs at Commercial Businesses 570
See Appendix 4 and Appendix 20A.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 7
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx
III. FISCAL IMPACTS
A. Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues upon Buildout
Upon build-out, the Project is estimated to generate approximately $2.92 million of annual
revenues to the City of Dublin’s General Fund. Property tax revenues are anticipated to be the
largest source of General Fund revenues, estimated to total $1.47 million per year (or 51% of
total revenues). Excluding the amount of property taxes that the City received in FY 2017/18
(which reflects the period prior to the development team’s purchase of the site for the proposed
project), the project will generate approximately $1.46 million of new property tax revenues to
the City.
Transient occupancy taxes (TOT) of $647,000 (or 22% of total revenues) and sales tax
revenues of $388,000 (or 13% of total revenues) are expected to be the second and third
largest sources of revenues, respectively. Also, property tax in-lieu of motor vehicle fees (VLF)
are expected to annually generate $261,000 of General Fund revenue (or 9% of total revenues).
Both property taxes and property taxes in-lieu of motor vehicle license fees are driven by the
assessed valuation of the Project upon buildout. The anticipated future assessed value of the
Project has been calculated based on development cost factors provided by Shea Properties
and the FY 2019/20 assessed land value of the site. The total assessed value upon completion
is estimated at $641 million, while the net new assessed value is estimated at $637 million
(Appendix 5A). The Project will generate sales tax revenues from on-site retail sales (including
taxable sales from the theater), the daytime purchases of the Project’s employees from other
locations in Dublin, and resident spending on retail merchandise in other Dublin locations.
Transient occupancy tax (TOT) is driven by hotel room sales. This analysis assumes a 150-
room, upscale extended stay hotel with each room containing a fully equipped kitchen. The
number of rooms reflects the applicant’s current development program, which allows for 150 to
155 rooms. The hotel class and format is consistent with the letter of intent from a hotel operator
that was presented in a prior planning application. This analysis conservatively assumes that the
proposed hotel will generate an average room rate of $185, which is equal to the inflation-
adjusted room rate of competitive hotels in the market area identified in the CBRE report,
“Market Demand Analysis of Proposed Hotels in Dublin” (October 19, 2017). Note that the CBRE
report finds that the subject hotel has the potential to achieve a 15% premium over prevailing
room rates, which is not assumed in this analysis.
Remaining revenue sources are anticipated to generate $148,000 annually (or 5% of total
revenues) and include: franchise fees, property transfer tax, and business registration fees.
Franchise fee revenues are based on per capita figures derived from revenue data from the
City’s 2019/20 adopted budget and the City’s current employment and population base.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 8
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx
Exhibit 10. Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues upon Buildout
Revenue Source
Total Annual
Impacts
Percent
of Total
New Annual
Impacts
Property Tax $1,473,000 51% $1,464,000
Transient Occupancy Tax $647,000 22% $647,000
Sales Tax $388,000 13% $388,000
Property Tax In-lieu of VLF $261,000 9% $261,000
Other Revenues1 $148,000 5% $148,000
Total Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues upon
Buildout
$2,917,000 100% $2,908,000
See Appendix 1 for details 1. Includes property transfer tax, franchise fees, and business registration fees.
Exhibit 11. Composition of Total Annual General Fund Revenues upon Buildout
B. Recurring Annual General Fund Expenditures upon Buildout
The annual cost to City of Dublin to provide services to the Project upon buildout is anticipated
to approximate $927,000. The single largest annual expenditure is expected to be for police
service costs, at $400,000 (or 43% of total expenses). The second largest expenditure is for fire
service costs and is anticipated to approximate $238,000 (or 26% of total expenses). Costs
associated with the Public Works Department, which is responsible for developing, operating
and maintaining City infrastructure, are anticipated to approximate $120,000. The Project will
include the development of new public infrastructure, including streets, curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, traffic signals, street lights and landscaped medians. In 2018, the City’s Public Works
Department estimated that the annual cost to maintain the public infrastructure would total
$76,000 ($2018) based on a prior development program. This estimate was adjusted to 2019
dollars based on the national inflation index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Parks
51%
22%
13%
9%
5%
Property Tax
Transient Occupancy Tax
Sales Tax
Property Tax In-lieu of VLF
Other Revenues
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 9
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx
and community services costs are anticipated to total $41,000 and other department expenses
are estimated to total $51,000.
Exhibit 12. Recurring Annual General Fund Expenditures upon Buildout
Expenditure Source
Total Annual
Impacts1
Percent of
Total
Police Services ($400,000) 43%
Fire Services ($238,000) 26%
Public Works – city-wide ($120,000) 13%
Public Works – new public improvements to be built by the Project ($77,000) 8%
Parks and Community Services ($41,000) 4%
Other Departments2 ($51,000) 6%
Total Recurring Annual General Fund Expenditures upon
Buildout ($927,000) 100%
See Appendix 1 for details
1. For General Fund expenditures, total annual impacts will be same as new annual impacts.
2. Includes Community Development, City Council, Office of the City Manager, City Clerk's Office, Human
Resources, City Attorney's Office and Administrative Services department expenditures.
Exhibit 13. Composition of Total Annual General Fund Expenditures upon Buildout
43%
26%
21%
4%6%
Police Services
Fire Services
Public Works
Parks and Community Services
Other Departments
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 10
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx
C. Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues from Residential Component
The residential component of the Project is estimated to generate approximately $1.54 million of
annual revenues to the General Fund. Property taxes are anticipated to be the largest source of
General Fund revenues and are expected to generate $1.13 million (or 74% of total residential
revenues). Property tax revenues are followed by property tax in-lieu of motor vehicle fees
(VLF) at $201,000 (or 13% of total residential revenues), and sales tax revenues at $77,000 (or
5% of total residential revenues). Remaining revenue sources are anticipated to generate
approximately $126,000 of annual revenues and include franchise fees and property transfer
tax.
Exhibit 14. Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues- Residential Only
Revenue Source
Total Annual
Impacts
Percent of
Total
New Annual
Impacts
Property Tax $1,131,000 74% $1,124,000
Property Tax In-lieu of VLF $201,000 13% $201,000
Sales Tax $77,000 5% $77,000
Other Revenues1 $126,000 8% $126,000
Total Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues upon
Buildout
$1,535,000 100% $1,528,000
See Appendix 22 for details
1. Includes property transfer tax and franchise fees.
Exhibit 15. Composition of Total Annual General Fund Revenues- Residential Only
74%
13%
5%
8%
Property Tax
Property Tax In-lieu of VLF
Sales Tax
Other Revenues
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 11
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx
D. Recurring Annual General Fund Expenditures from Residential Component
The annual cost to City of Dublin to provide services to the residential component of the Project
is anticipated to approximate $789,000. The single largest annual expenditure is expected to be
for police service costs, which is estimated at $337,000 (or 43% of total residential
expenditures). The second largest expenditure is for fire services costs and is anticipated to
total $201,000 (or 25% of total residential expenditures). Costs associated with the Public
Works Department, which is responsible for developing, operating and maintaining City
infrastructure are estimated to account for $101,000, while the project-specific public works
expenditure is estimated at $65,000. Parks and community services costs are anticipated to
total $41,000 and other department expenses are estimated to total $44,000 per year.
Exhibit 16. Recurring Annual General Fund Expenditures- Residential Only
Expenditure Source
Total Annual
Impacts1
Percent
of Total
Police Protection Services ($337,000) 43%
Fire Protection Services ($201,000) 25%
Public Works – city-wide ($101,000) 13%
Public Works – new public improvements to be built by the Project ($65,000) 8%
Parks and Community Services ($41,000) 5%
Other Departments2 ($44,000) 6%
Total Recurring Annual General Fund Expenditures upon
Buildout
($789,000) 100%
See Appendix 22 for details
1. For General Fund expenditures, total annual impacts will be same as new annual impacts.
2. Includes Community Development, City Council, Office of the City Manager, City Clerk’s Office, Human
Resources Department, City Attorney's Office and Administrative Services department expenditures.
Exhibit 17. Composition of Total Annual General Fund Expenditures- Residential Only
43%
25%
21%
5%6%
Police Services
Fire Services
Public Works
Parks and Community Services
Other Departments
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 12
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx
E. One-time Construction-related General Fund Revenues to City of Dublin
Use tax revenues will be generated by construction material purchases. For the purpose of this
analysis, it has been assumed that City of Dublin is designated as the point of sale by the
general and sub-contractors for 50% of the materials purchased for construction, and the cost of
construction materials is equal to 50% of the total estimated hard cost. Use tax revenues from
purchase of construction materials are estimated to total $770,000. Additionally, initial property
transfer tax revenues from land sales transactions preceding development are estimated to total
$70,000, and transfer taxes from the initial sales of residential units are estimated to total
$222,000.
Exhibit 18. One-time General Fund Sales/Use Tax Revenues from Construction
$ Total
Total Hard Cost $309,700,000
Estimated Construction Material Cost as a percentage of Hard Costs 50%
Estimated Share with Dublin as a point of Sale 50%
Estimated Construction Material Sales in City of Dublin $77,425,000
Local Sales and Use Tax Rate 1%
Total One-time City Sales/Use Tax Revenues from Construction $770,000
See Appendix 20A for details
Exhibit 19. One-time Initial Property Transfer Tax Revenues
$ Total
Property Transfer Tax from Purchase of Development Site $70,000
Property Transfer Tax from Initial Sale of Ownership Units $222,000
Total Initial General Fund Property Transfer Tax Revenue $292,000
See Appendix 20B for details
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 13
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx
IV. METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
The fiscal impact analysis provides a preliminary estimate of the annual recurring fiscal
revenues and expenses that the Project will generate to the General Fund of the City of Dublin
upon buildout, as well as one-time revenues generated during construction.
General Fund revenues are the focus of the fiscal analysis because these revenues are the
major sources of discretionary spending for key city services, including police and fire services,
public works, and administrative services.
This preliminary analysis measures the total annual impacts upon buildout of the entire Project
and of the residential component, independent of the commercial component. The impacts of
the residential component have been evaluated to ensure that the residential component alone
will generate sufficient tax revenues to fund the cost of providing municipal services to the
residential component.
The major revenue and cost elements evaluated include property taxes, transient occupancy,
sales and use taxes, and fire, public works, police, and parks and community services costs.
Projections are static estimates based on both marginal estimating sources, such as assessed
values and per capita retail spending information, and on average revenue and expenditure
factors derived from the City’s FY 2019/20 Budget Summary. Estimates are in 2019 dollars.
The analysis reflects the assumption that the Project is financially feasible, reaches full
build-out, and that the land use components generate gross receipts consistent with the
levels generated by newly constructed developments.
The analysis is presented in attached tables. The key assumptions of the analysis and
methodologies used to calculate the revenue impacts are summarized below.
Development Program – Per information from Shea Properties (October 2019
submittal), the proposed Project is spread across 76.9 acres and includes approximately
240,000 SF of commercial development and 566 residential units. The commercial
development includes 120,000 SF of retail and entertainment uses, 45,000 SF of
medical office uses, and one hotel containing approximately 150 rooms. The residential
development includes 240 multifamily apartments, plus 326 single family detached units,
60% of which will be reserved for residents over the age of 55. See Appendix 3A.
Existing City of Dublin Demographics – The source for population and household
demographic data is ESRI Business Analyst Demographic Forecasts for 2019. See
Appendix 2.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 14
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx
Project Demographics – Resident population is based on the current average
household size and residential vacancy level in City of Dublin per ESRI Business
Analyst. Commercial employment has been estimated based on employment density
factors of 400 SF/employee for retail spaces, 600 SF/employee for the gas station/
convenience store, 1,000 SF/employee for the movie theater, 200 SF/employee for
restaurants, and 250 SF/employee for medical office. Hotel employment has been
estimated based on the employment density factor of 0.9 employees per room. KMA has
assumed a commercial vacancy level of 5% for this analysis. See Appendix 4.
Inflation of Revenue and Expenses – The analysis is a static analysis of conditions
upon buildout of the Project. Revenues are presented in 2019 dollars.
Continuity of Legal and Institutional Constraints – The revenue and expenditure
structure of the City is based on the adopted FY 2019-20 budget. The projection
assumes that the revenue sources will remain constant.
Rounding – In some cases the calculated summations presented in the appendix tables
do not precisely match the summations presented in the body of the report. These
differences are due to rounding.
Service Population – The estimates of Franchise Fees and most service costs use a
modified per capita measure known as “Service Population.” This approach combines
residents and employees to form a single service population. The Service Population
approach weights an employee as 0.50 of a resident, such that two employees are
viewed as having the same impact as one resident. See Appendix 4.
Assessed Property Value – The assessed values of the commercial and rental
residential components have been estimated based on the development site’s
acquisition cost and hard cost factors derived from the development budget provided by
Shea Properties in June 2018 for the previous development program. KMA adjusted the
hard cost factors for inflation using the national CPI and applied the inflation-adjusted
factors to the current commercial and rental residential building areas. KMA estimates
that a portion of soft costs would be included in the project’s assessed value, equivalent
to 20% of hard cost estimates. The land values of the commercial and rental residential
components have been estimated per the FY 2019/20 assessed land values (source:
RealQuest). See Appendix 5A.
For-sale residential properties’ assessed values are based on Shea Properties’
estimates of home sale prices provided in December 2019.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 15
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx
City of Dublin General Fund’s Portion of Property Tax Revenues – The Project is
located in Tax Rate Area (TRA) 26-023. The City receives 22.98% of the base 1%
property tax levy in this TRA. See Appendix 6.
Property Transfer Tax – The City receives $0.55 for every $1,000 of assessed value of
properties upon sale. In order to project annual property transfer taxes, this analysis
assumes that the average holding period for homes is 7 years and that the holding
period for commercial uses is 20 years (see Appendix 7). Additionally, the City received
transfer tax revenues from the initial purchase of the development site by SCS Dublin
Realty LLC and the resale of the site to an affiliate, SCS Development Co and Award
Homes. The City will also receive transfer taxes from the resale of single family
residential units. See Appendix 20B.
Property Tax In-Lieu of Motor Vehicle License Fees – Property tax in-lieu of VLF has
been estimated in accordance with SB 1096, based on data from the California State
Controller’s Office and projected assessed values. It is estimated based on $0.41 per
$1,000 growth in projected assessed values. See Appendix 8.
Sales Tax Revenues – The City receives 1% of taxable sales. The sales tax revenues
from retail activities are based on the average per square foot taxable sales generated
by Persimmon Place in Dublin ($430/SF, after adjusting to 2019 dollars). Total revenue
from the theater/cinema is estimated at $15-16 million, with 50% attributable to taxable
food and beverage sales, based on information provided by Shea Properties for the prior
development application. The analysis reflects the assumption that 100% of on-site
sales are “new” sales to the City and are not generated by a transfer of sales from
existing Dublin retailers to the subject Project. See Appendix 9A.
Off-site taxable spending by project employees is estimated based on weekly retail
spending by suburban workers, as reported in the ICSC report, "Office Worker Retail
Spending in a Digital Age" (2012). Figures have been adjusted to 2019 dollars using the
national CPI. KMA has assumed that 40% of the taxable employee retail spending is
captured on-site, 10% is captured off-site in other retail locations in City of Dublin, while
remaining 50% is captured by retail located outside the City. See Appendix 9A.
Taxable expenditures by residents are estimated based on the estimated household
income for each residential prototype (Appendix 9B), and the average percentage of
income spent on taxable expenditures for the residents of the Nine County Bay Area.
KMA has assumed that 20% of the taxable household retail spending is captured on-
site, 30% is captured off-site in other retail locations in City of Dublin, while the
remaining 50% is captured by retail located outside the City. See Appendix 9B.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 16
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) – This analysis assumes a 150-room, upscale
extended stay hotel with each room containing a fully equipped kitchen. The number of
rooms reflects the applicant’s current development program, which allows for 150 to 155
rooms, while the hotel class and format is consistent with the letter of intent from a hotel
operator that was presented in a prior planning application. This analysis conservatively
assumes that the proposed hotel will generate an average room rate of $185, which is
equal to the inflation-adjusted room rate of competitive hotels in the market area
identified in the CBRE report, “Market Demand Analysis of Proposed Hotels in Dublin”
(October 19, 2017). Note that the CBRE report finds that the subject hotel has the
potential to achieve a 15% premium over prevailing room rates, which is not assumed in
this analysis. Based on current occupancy rates of competing hotels and the CBRE
projection, it is estimated that the hotel will achieve an average occupancy rate of 80%
upon stabilization. Per Dublin Municipal Code (section 3.16.030), the transient
occupancy tax rate in the City is 8%. See Appendix 10.
Business Registration Fees – The current initial business registration fee is $92 per
business and the annual renewal rate is $26. The total number of businesses upon
buildout is estimated based on the following assumed average square feet per business:
3,000 square feet for retail and restaurants and 5,000 square feet for medical office
tenants. It is assumed that the Project will also include one gas station/ convenience
store, one theater, one theater restaurant, and one hotel. See Appendix 11.
Franchise Fees – The estimate of Franchise Fees is based on the per capita (service
population) figure derived from revenue data from the City’s 2019/20 budget. See
Appendix 12.
General Fund Expenditures – This fiscal impact analysis uses average cost multipliers
derived from the City of Dublin’s 2019-20 Budget Summary to project General Fund costs
for providing public services. Estimates of police, public works, fire, community
development, and other administrative departments’ costs are based on the current city
cost per service population, while the cost estimate for parks and community services is
based on the current cost per city resident. The cost to maintain new public infrastructure
that will be built as part of the project was estimated by the City’s Public Works
Department based on the prior development application and has been adjusted to 2019
dollars using the national CPI. See Appendices 13 to 19.
Total Annual General Fund Impacts versus Net New Annual General Fund Impacts
– Given that the development site is vacant, the difference between the total fiscal
impacts of the project and the net new impacts of the project is the amount of annual
property tax revenue that the development site generated to the City prior to the
development team’s acquisition of the site in 2017.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 17
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx
Construction-related Sales/Use Tax Revenues – The Construction use tax revenue
estimate is based on cost information provided by Shea Properties. Hard cost factors for
commercial and rental residential have been derived from the development budget
provided by Shea Properties in June 2018 for the previous development program. Cost
factors were adjusted for inflation and applied to the currently proposed commercial and
rental residential building areas. Hard costs of for-sale residential are based on updated
cost estimates provided by Shea Properties in December 2019. The use tax revenue
estimate reflects the assumption that the City of Dublin is designated as the point of sale
by the general and sub-contractors for 50% of the materials purchased for the
construction of the Project and that materials costs account for 50% of hard construction
costs. See Appendix 20A.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 18
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx
V. LIMITING CONDITIONS
1. The analysis contained in this document is based, in part, on data provided by third
parties and published data sources. While Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA)
believes that the sources consulted are reliable, we cannot guarantee their accuracy.
2. A projection of economic and fiscal impacts is inherently based on judgment. The
projections contained herein are based on the best information available at the time that
this document was prepared. Actual impacts are likely to vary from the estimates
contained in this report.
3. The analysis assumes that the economy will continue to grow at a moderate rate.
4. Revenue projections are based on the best project-specific and fiscal data available at
this time as well as experience with comparable projects. Material changes to costs,
development program, or project performance may render the conclusions contained
herein invalid.
5. Revenue estimates are based on the assumption that sufficient market support exists for
the proposed uses and that the Project will achieve industry standard productivity levels.
6. It is assumed that all applicable laws and governmental regulations in place as of the
date of this document will remain unchanged throughout the projection period. In the
event that this does not hold true, for example, if any tax rate changes, the analysis
would need to be revised.
7. KMA is not liable for the accuracy of any abstracts, excerpts or summaries of this report
that are not prepared by KMA.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 19
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-003.docx
VI.APPENDIX TABLES
Fiscal Impacts of the Proposed (entire) Project
Appendix 1: Summary of Annual Fiscal Impacts to the City of Dublin
Appendix 2: FY 2019/20 City of Dublin Demographics
Appendix 3A: Proposed Land Use Summary
Appendix 3B: Proposed Residential Unit Mix
Appendix 3C: Proposed Commercial Tenant Mix
Appendix 4: Estimated Project Demographics
Appendix 5A: Estimated Assessed Value
Appendix 5B: Project Assessed Land Values: FY 2017/18 and FY 2019/20
Appendix 6: Estimate of Annual Base Property Tax Revenues
Appendix 7: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Property Transfer Tax Revenues
Appendix 8: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee Revenues
Appendix 9A: Estimate of Annual Sales Tax Revenues from Retail Sales and Employee Spending
Appendix 9B: Estimate of Annual Sales Tax Revenues from Resident Spending
Appendix 10: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Revenues
Appendix 11: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Business Registration Fees
Appendix 12: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Franchise Fee Revenues
Appendix 13: Estimate of Annual General Fund Police Services Costs
Appendix 14: Estimate of Annual General Fund Parks and Community Services Costs
Appendix 15: Estimate of Annual General Fund Public Works Costs
Appendix 16: Estimate of Annual General Fund Project Specific Public Works Costs
Appendix 17: Estimate of Annual General Fund Fire Services Costs
Appendix 18: Estimate of Annual General Fund Community Development Costs
Appendix 19: Estimate of Annual General Fund Other Departments Costs
Appendix 20A: Estimate of One-time Sales and Use Tax and Employment Created by Construction Activities
Appendix 20B: Estimate of One-time Property Transfer Tax from Purchase of the Site and from For-Sale Units
Appendix 21: FY 2019/20 General Fund Summary
Fiscal Impacts of the Residential Component
Appendix 22: Summary of Annual Fiscal Impacts to the City of Dublin- Residential Only
Appendix 23: Estimated Project Demographics- Residential Only
Appendix 24: Estimated Assessed Value- Residential Only
Appendix 25: Estimate of Annual Property Tax Revenues- Residential Only
Appendix 26: Estimate of Annual Property Transfer Tax Revenues- Residential Only
Appendix 27: Estimate of Annual Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee Revenues- Residential Only
Appendix 28: Estimate of Annual Sales Tax Revenues from Resident Spending
Appendix 29: Estimate of Annual Franchise Fee Revenues- Residential Only
Appendix 30: Estimate of Annual Police Services Costs- Residential Only
Appendix 31: Estimate of Annual Parks and Community Services Costs- Residential Only
Appendix 32A: Estimate of Annual Public Works Costs- Residential Only
Appendix 32B: Estimate of Annual Project Specific Public Works Costs- Residential Only
Appendix 33: Estimate of Annual Fire Services Costs- Residential Only
Appendix 34: Estimate of Annual Community Development Costs- Residential Only
Appendix 35: Estimate of Annual Other Departments Costs- Residential Only
Appendix 36A: Estimate of One-time Sales and Use Tax from Construction Activities- Residential Only
Appendix 36B: Est. of One-time Prop. Transfer Tax from Site Purchase and from For-Sale Units- Residential Only
Appendix 1: Summary of Annual Fiscal Impacts to the City of Dublin
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Total Net New
Annual Impacts Annual Impacts1
I. Annual Recurring General Fund Impacts
upon Buildout
Revenues2
Property Tax $1,473,000 $1,464,000
Property Transfer Tax $38,000 $38,000
Property Tax In-lieu of VLF $261,000 $261,000
Sales Tax $388,000 $388,000
Transient Occupancy Tax $647,000 $647,000
Business Registration Fee $1,000 $1,000
Franchise Fees $109,000 $109,000
Total Revenues $2,917,000 $2,908,000
Expenditures3
Police Services Cost ($400,000)($400,000)
Parks and Community Services Cost ($41,000)($41,000)
Public Works Cost ($120,000)($120,000)
Project Specific Public Works ($77,000)($77,000)
Fire Services Cost ($238,000)($238,000)
Community Development Cost ($3,000)($3,000)
Other Department Cost4 ($48,000)($48,000)
Total Expenditures ($927,000)($927,000)
Net Annual Fiscal Surplus/(Deficit)$1,990,000 $1,981,000
$ Total
II. One-time Construction Related Revenues
Sales and Use Tax Generated from Construction
Material Purchases5 $770,000
Initial Prop. Transfer Tax from Land Sale Transaction6 $70,000
Initial Prop.Transfer Tax from For-Sale Units6 $222,000
Total One-time Revenues $1,062,000
Figures rounded
1.FY 2017/18 has been assumed as the base year to calculate the net new annual impacts of the project. In FY 2017/18,
the site generated property tax revenues on the basis of the assessed values of its (vacant) land parcels.
2.See Appendices 6 to 12 for individual revenue calculations and assumptions.
4.Includes City Council, Office of the City Manager, City Clerk's Office, Human Resources Department, City Attorney's
Office and Administrative Services department expenditures.
5.See Appendix 20A for details.
6.See Appendix 20B for details.
3.See Appendices 13 to 19 for individual expenditure calculations and assumptions.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 20
Appendix 2: FY 2019/20 City of Dublin Demographics
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
FY 2019/20
Population1 66,147
Households1 21,593
Employment1 22,237
Service Population2 77,000 rounded
Average Household Income1 $179,754
Average Household Size1 2.81
1. Source: ESRI Business Analyst.
2. Service Population calculated as resident population plus half of employment population.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 21
Appendix 3A: Proposed Land Use Summary
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Gross Res.Commercial Hotel
Land Use Designation Acres1 Units Sq. Ft.Rooms
Commercial 19.2 0 240,000 150
Retail, Restaurants, and Services 54,000
Medical Office 45,000
Movie Theater 66,000
Hotel2 75,000 150
Multi-Family Apartments 4.0 240 0 0
Single Family Detached 51.2 326 0 0
Single Family: Cluster 15
Single Family: Traditional 115
Age-Restricted (55+): Duet 99
Age-Restricted (55+): Cluster 97
Parks/Open Space 2.5
Total 76.9 566 240,000 150
Source: City of Dublin based on applicant's submittal in October 2019.
1.Gross Acreage is the Net Site Area plus 25 ft of the area of the abutting streets.
Acreage by land use estimated by KMA based on site plan.
2. Develper estimates 150-155 keys.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 22
Appendix 3B: Proposed Residential Unit Mix
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Number of Avg. Area
Residential Type Units Per Unit (SF)2
Multifamily Apartments1
Studios 12 558
1 Bedroom 132 741
2 Bedroom 84 1,113
3 Bedroom 12 1,380
Subtotal/Average 240 894
Single Family Detached1
Single Family: Cluster 15 2,247
Single Family: Traditional 115 2,935
Age-Restricted (55+): Duet 99 1,927
Age-Restricted (55+): Cluster 97 2,131
Subtotal/Average 326 2,358
Total Residential Units 566
Source: City of Dublin based on applicant's submittal in October 2019.
1. Unit mix and product type is based on the current site development plan and is subject to change.
2. Average unit size of multifamily apartments is based on June 2018 development plan.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 23
Appendix 3C: Proposed Commercial Tenant Mix
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Commerical Square Feet
Total Commercial 240,000 SF
Gas Station/ Convenience Store 2,000 SF
Restaurant (including Quick Service)34,000 SF
Retail Service and Soft Goods 18,000 SF
Movie Theater (excluding Restaurant)58,000 SF
Movie Theater Restaurant 8,000 SF
Hotel 75,000 SF
Medical Office 45,000 SF
Source: City of Dublin based on applicant's submittal in October 2019.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 24
Appendix 4: Estimated Project Demographics
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Residential
Average Household Size1 2.81
Residential Vacancy1 4.20%
Total Residential Units2 566
Resident Population 1,524
Commercial Employment
Commercial Vacancy3 5%
Area (SF)/SF/ Employee or Total
Commercial Type4 Rooms4 Rooms/Emp.3 Employees
Gas Station/ Convenience Store 2,000 SF 600 3
Restaurant 34,000 SF 200 162
Retail Service and Soft Goods 18,000 SF 400 43
Movie Theater5 58,000 SF 1,000 58
Hotel5 150 rooms 0.9 135
Medical Office 45,000 SF 250 171
Total Employees 572
Service Population6 1,810
1. Source: ESRI Business Analyst.
2. See Appendix 3B.
3. KMA Assumption.
4. See Appendix 3C.
5. Does not include vacancy factor.
6. Service Population calculated as resident population plus half of employment.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 25
Appendix 5A: Estimated Assessed Value
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Total Estimated Assessed Value upon Buildout
Commercial $149,000,000 rounded
Rental Residential $88,000,000 rounded
For-Sale Residential $404,000,000 rounded
Total Estimated AV upon buildout $641,000,000
for detailed calculations see below
Assessed Value of Commercial Properties upon Buildout
Estimated
APN1 Tax Area2 Area (Acres)2 Land Value2
985-0051-004 26-023 1.0 $1,080,105
985-0051-005 26-023 17.3 $18,538,985
Total Estimated Commercial Land Value 18.3 $19,619,090
Est. Improvement
Commercial Product Type Hard Cost4 Soft Cost5 Value
Commercial - Retail & Restaurant $25,300,000 $5,060,000 $30,360,000
Commercial - Movie Theater $31,000,000 $6,200,000 $37,200,000
Commercial - Medical Office $21,100,000 $4,220,000 $25,320,000
Hotel - 150 Keys $30,800,000 $6,160,000 $36,960,000
Total Estimated Improvement Value of Commercial Development $129,840,000
Total Estimated Assessed Value of Commercial Development6 $149,459,000
Assessed Value of Rental (high density) Residential Properties upon Buildout
Estimated
APN1 Tax Area2 Area (Acres)3 Land Value2
985-0051-004 26-023 0.2 $225,495
985-0051-005 26-023 3.6 $3,870,415
Total Estimated Multifamily Land Value 3.8 $4,095,910
Est. Improvement
Residential Product Type Hard Cost4 Soft Cost5 Value
Multifamily Apartments $69,600,000 $13,920,000 $83,520,000
Total Est. Assessed Value of Rental Residential Development $87,616,000
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 26
Appendix 5A: Estimated Assessed Value
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Assessed Value of For-sale Residential Properties upon Buildout
Sale Price Est. Assessed
For-Sale Residential Product Type Per Unit8 No. of Units Value
Single Family: Cluster 1,169,000$ 15 $17,535,000
Single Family: Traditional 1,410,835$ 115 $162,246,025
Age-Restricted (55+): Duet 1,051,000$ 99 $104,049,000
Age-Restricted (55+): Cluster 1,243,000$ 97 $120,571,000
Total Est. Assessed Value of For-sale Residential Development $404,401,000
Total Estimated Assessed Value upon Buildout $641,000,000
<Less> FY 2017/18 Total Assessed Value (Land Value)7 -$4,284,468
Net New Assessed Value upon Buildout $637,000,000
Note: Final Figure rounded to closest 1,000,000s.
1. Per City of Dublin based on applicant's submittal in October 2019.
2. Source: RealQuest, see Appendix 5B for details. For the purpose of this analysis, land value of completed project
has been assumed to be equal to FY 2019/20 assessed land value.
3. Per the Site Plan (June 4, 2019), parcels 985-0051-004 & -005 (22.14 acres) are designated for mixed-use
(commercial and rental residential). See Appendix 5B for distribution of land area for the two parcels.
4. See Appendix 20A for hard cost assumptions.
5. KMA estimates that a portion of soft costs would be included in assessed values. The portion assumed is
equivalent to 20% of hard costs.
6. KMA has not included the unsecured assessed values in this analysis.
7. See Appendix 5B for details. FY 2017/18, which reflects the value of the property prior to its purchase by the
development team, has been assumed as the base year to estimate the net new annual impacts of the project.
8. Pricing provided by Shea Properties in December 2019.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 27
Appendix 5B: Project Assessed Land Values: FY 2017/18 and FY 2019/20
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Tax Area FY 2017/18 FY 2019/20
APN Area1 (Acres)1 Land AV1 Land AV1 Commercial Rental Res.For-sale Res.Total Commercial Rental Res.For-sale Res.Total
985-0051-004 26-023 1.22 $63,505 $1,305,600 $52,537 $10,968 $63,505 $1,080,105 $225,495.27 $1,305,600
985-0051-005 26-023 20.92 $1,178,117 $22,409,400 $974,640 $203,477 $1,178,117 $18,538,985 $3,870,414.84 $22,409,400
985-0051-0062 26-023 30.26 $1,704,308 $32,425,800 $1,704,308 $1,704,308 $32,425,800 $32,425,800
985-0052-024 26-023 20.70 $1,165,580 $22,174,800 $1,165,580 $1,165,580 $22,174,800 $22,174,800
985-0052-025 26-023 3.07 $172,958 $3,284,400 $172,958 $172,958 $3,284,400 $3,284,400
Totals 76.17 $4,284,468 $81,600,000 $1,027,177 $214,445 $3,042,846 $4,284,468 $19,619,090 $4,095,910 $57,885,000 $81,600,000
Notes:
1. Source: RealQuest
2. As per the Site Plan (June 4, 2019), Parcels 985-0051-004 and -005 (total area = 22.14 acres) are designated for mixed-use (commercial and rental residential).
KMA has assumed the following distribution of land area per land use for the two parcels:
Land Use Acres % Total Comments
Commercial 18.32 83%KMA assumption
Rental Residential 3.82 17%KMA assumption
22.14 100%
FY 2019/20 Assessed Land Value DistributionFY 2017/18 Assessed Land Value Distribution
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 28
Appendix 6: Estimate of Annual Base Property Tax Revenues
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Total New1
Total Estimated Assessed Value2 $641,000,000 $637,000,000
Base 1% Property Tax Levy $6,410,000 $6,370,000
Tax Rate Area 26-023 26-023
City of Dublin General Fund's portion of Base 1% Property Tax (Post-ERAF)3 22.98%22.98%
Estimate of Annual Property Tax Revenues $1,473,000 $1,464,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s.
1. FY 2017/18 has been assumed as the base year to estimate the new annual impacts of the project.
2. See Appendix 5A for details.
3. Estimated based on 19-20 ERAF Contribution Percentages
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 29
Appendix 7: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Property Transfer Tax Revenues
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Transfer Tax Rate per $1,000 of Assessed Value1 $0.55
Holding Period Assumptions
Multifamily Apartments2 20 years
Single Family Detached2 7 years
Commercial2 20 years
Est. Assessed Property
Land Use Value3 Transfer Tax
Residential
Multifamily Apartments $87,616,000 $2,409
Single Family Detached $404,401,000 $31,774
Commercial $149,459,000 $4,110
Totals $641,000,000 $38,000
Estimate of Annual Property Transfer Tax Revenues $38,000
Note: Figures rounded
1. Source: http://www.californiacityfinance.com/PropTransfTaxRates.pdf, accessed 07/03/2018.
2. KMA Assumption.
3. See Appendix 5 for details.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 30
Appendix 8: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee Revenues
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
2004-05 Vehicle License Fee Adjusted Amount1,2 $2,278,846
2004-05 Assessed Valuation1,2 $5,553,452,954
VLF per $1,000 in AV Growth $0.41
Estimated Assessed Value Upon Buildout3 $641,000,000
<Less> FY 2017/18 Assessed Value (Land Value)4 ($4,284,468)
Total Estimated Net New Assessed Value upon Buildout $636,715,532
Estimate of Annual Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF Revenues $261,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s
1. As per SB 1096, growth of property tax in lieu of VLF is proportional to growth in AV since 2004/05.
2. VLF distribution in 2004/05 per the California State Controller's Office.
3. See Appendix 5A.
4. See Appendix 5B for details. FY 2017/18 has been assumed as the base year to estimate the net new annual impacts
from the project.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 31
Appendix 9A: Estimate of Annual Sales Tax Revenues from Retail Sales and Employee Spending
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
City of Dublin's share of sales tax of total taxable Sales1 1.00%
Sales Tax from Retail Activities
Estimated Taxable Retail Sales per Square Foot2 $430
Total Retail Square Feet3 54,000
Estimated Total Taxable Retail Sales $23,195,000
Estimated Sales Tax from Retail Activities $232,000
Sales Tax from Theater
Estimated Taxable (F&B) Theater Retail Sales4 $7,907,000
Estimated Sales Tax from Theater Activities $79,000
Sales Tax from Off-Site Employee Spending
Weekly Employee Spending on Retail5 $15
Weeks at Work per Year6 50
Average Annual Retail Spending per Employee $730
City of Dublin (off-site) Capture Rate7 10%
Onsite Capture Rate7 40%
Employee Spending Captured Outside City of Dublin7 50%
100%
Annual Income Spent on off-site Retail Sales in Dublin per Employee $73
New Employment8 572
Estimated Off-site Taxable Sales from Employee Spending $42,000
Estimated Sales Tax from Off-site Employee Spending $420
Estimate of Annual Sales Tax Revenues from Retail Sales and Employee Spending $311,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s.
1. Source: Dublin Municipal Code
2. This is based on average per square foot taxable sales generated by Persimmon Place in Dublin (includes vacancy).
Factor has been adjusted to $2019 using national CPI.
3. See Appendix 3; Excludes hotel and movie theater.
4. As per Shea Properties, total revenue from theater/cinema is estimated to be $15-$16 million with
50% being Food and Beverage (F&B) sales. Factor has been adjusted to $2019 using national CPI.
5. Based on weekly employee restaurant spending in the vicinity of the workplace, as reported in the ICSC report,
"Office Worker Retail Spending in a Digital Age" (2012), for suburban workers, assuming 50 weeks at work per year.
Figures adjusted to $2019 using national CPI.
6. KMA assumption.
7. KMA has assumed that 40% of the taxable employee retail spending is captured on-site, 10% is captured off-site in
other retail locations in City of Dublin, while remaining 50% is captured by retail located outside the City.
8. See Appendix 4.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 32
Appendix 9B: Estimate of Annual Sales Tax Revenues from Resident Spending
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
City of Dublin's share of sales tax of total taxable Sales1 1.00%
Percentage of Household Income Spent on Taxable Retail Sales2 26.5%
No. of Monthly Est. HH HH Taxable Total Retail
Rental Multi-Family HH3 Area (SF)4 Rent5 Income6 Retail Spending Spending
Studios 11 558 $1,902 $76,000 $20,149 $221,635
1 Bedroom 125 741 $2,525 $101,000 $26,777 $3,347,064
2 Bedroom 80 1,113 $3,793 $152,000 $40,297 $3,223,786
3 Bedroom 11 1,380 $4,703 $188,000 $49,841 $548,256
Estimated Taxable Retail Spending by Multifamily Residential HH $7,340,741
City of Dublin (off-site) Capture Rate7 30%
Onsite Capture Rate7 20%
Spending Captured Outside City of Dublin7 50%
100%
Estimated Off-site Taxable Sales from Multifamily Resident Spending $2,202,000
Estimated Sales Tax from off-site Multifamily Resident Spending $22,000
No. of Est. Sale Est. HH HH Taxable Total Retail
For-sale Units HH3 Area (SF)4 Price8 Income9 Retail Spending Spending
SF: Cluster 14 2,247 $1,169,000 $212,000 $56,204 $786,858
SF: Traditional 109 2,935 $1,410,835 $256,000 $67,869 $7,397,741
55+: Duet 94 1,927 $1,051,000 $191,000 $50,637 $4,759,857
55+: Cluster 92 2,131 $1,243,000 $226,000 $59,916 $5,512,250
Estimated Taxable Retail Spending by For-sale Residential HH $18,456,706
City of Dublin (off-site) Capture Rate7 30%
Onsite Capture Rate7 20%
Spending Captured Outside City of Dublin7 50%
100%
Estimated off-site Taxable Sales from for-sale Units' Resident Spending $5,537,000
Estimated Sales Tax from off-site for-sale Units' Resident Spending $55,000
Estimate of Annual Sales Tax Revenues from Resident Spending $77,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s.
1. Source: Dublin Municipal Code.
2. Based on the average percentage of income spent on Retail and Food services for Nine County Bay Area
residents; Source: CA Board of Equalization (2017).
3. Includes a 5% vacancy factor.
4. See Appendix 3B.
5. Estimated on the basis of $3.41/SF.
6. Estimated based on the assumption that 30% of the annual household income goes towards rent.
7. KMA assumption.
8. Based on range provided by Shea Properties.
9. Estimated based on the assumption that 30% of the household income goes towards mortgage payment. Mortgage
is calculated as a self amortizing 30 year loan at 5.5% on 80% of the sale price.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 33
Appendix 10: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Revenues
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Hotel 1: Upscale Extended Stay Hotel
Estimated Number of Rooms (Keys)150
Annual Room Nights 54,750
Average Daily Rate (ADR in $2019) 1, 2 $185
Occupancy upon Stablization1 80%
Hotel Revenue Generated $8,088,663
TOT
Revenues
Total Hotel Revenue Generated $8,088,663
City of Dublin TOT Rate3 8%
Estimate of Annual Transient Occupancy Tax Revenues $647,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s
1. As per CBRE (Report dated October 19, 2017).
2. Room rate reflects inflation-adjusted average of competitive hotels in the market area.
The CBRE report projects a 15% room rate premium for the subject hotel which is not assumed in this analysis.
3. Source: Dublin Municipal Code (section 3.16.030).
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 34
Appendix 11: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Business License Registration Fees
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Annual Business License Registration Fee per business1 $26
Estimated Avg.# of Business Reg.
Commercial2 Program2 SF per Business3 Businesses Fees
Total Commercial
Gas Station/ Convenience Store 2,000 SF 2,000 1 $26
Restaurant (including Quick Servic 34,000 SF 3,000 11 $286
Retail Service and Soft Goods 18,000 SF 3,000 6 $156
Movie Theater (excluding Restaura 58,000 SF 58,000 1 $26
Movie Theater Restaurant 8,000 SF 8,000 1 $26
Hotel 150 keys 1 $26
Medical Office 45,000 SF 5,000 9 $234
Estimate of Annual Business Registration Fees $1,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s
1. Source: City of Dublin; Initial fee amount is $92 per business, but thereafter the annual fee is $26 per business.
2. See Appendix 4 for details
3. KMA assumption
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 35
Appendix 12: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Franchise Fee Revenues
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Franchise Fee FY 2019/201,2 $4,649,400
FY 2019/20 Service Population3 77,000
Estimated Franchise Fee per Service Population $60
New Service Population in the Plan Area4 1,810
Estimate of Annual Franchise Fee Revenues $109,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s
1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Budget Summary FY 2019/20; See Appendix 21 for details.
2. Includes Electric, Gas, Garbage and Cable Franchise Taxes.
3. See Appendix 2.
4. See Appendix 4.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 36
Appendix 13: Estimate of Annual General Fund Police Services Costs
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
FY 2019/20
Police Services General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $22,880,699
Less Police Services General Fund Revenues1 ($160,209)
Police Services Net General Fund Expenditures $22,720,490
FY 2019/20 Service Population2 77,000
Percentage Variable Factor 75%
Adjusted Police Services Net Expenditure per Service Population $221
New Service Population in the Plan Area3 1,810
Estimate of Annual Police Services Costs $400,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s
1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Budget Summary FY 2019/20; See Appendix 21 for details.
2. See Appendix 2.
3. See Appendix 4.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 37
Appendix 14: Estimate of Annual General Fund Parks and Community Services Costs
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
FY 2019/20
Parks and Community Services General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $8,892,352
Less Parks and Community Services General Fund Revenues1 ($5,334,960)
Parks and Community Services Net General Fund Expenditures $3,557,392
FY 2019/20 Resident Population2 66,147
Percentage Variable Factor 50%
Adjusted Parks and Comm. Services Net Expenditure per Resident Pop.$27
New Resident Population in the Plan Area3 1,524
Estimate of Annual Parks and Community Services Costs $41,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s
1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Budget Summary FY 2019/20; See Appendix 21 for details.
2. See Appendix 2.
3. See Appendix 4.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 38
Appendix 15: Estimate of Annual General Fund Public Works Costs
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
FY 2019/20
Public Works General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $13,616,377
Less Environmental Services General Fund Revenues1 ($3,430,690)
Public Works Net General Fund Expenditures $10,185,687
FY 2019/20 Service Population2 77,000
Percentage Variable Factor 50%
Adjusted Public Works Net Expenditure per Resident Population $66
New Service Population in the Plan Area3 1,810
Projected Annual Public Works Cost $120,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s
1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Budget Summary FY 2019/20; See Appendix 21 for details.
2. See Appendix 2.
3. See Appendix 4.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 39
Appendix 16: Estimate of Annual General Fund Project-Specific Public Works Costs
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Frequency
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost (in Years)Annual Cost
Street Lights
200 HPSV1 40 ea $125.34 1 $5,014
100 MH2 - ea $125.34 1 $0
70 MH2 - ea $48.43 1 $0
Landscaping4
6'-planter3 61,140 sf $0.55 1 $33,627
16'-median2 - sf $0.55 1 $0
trees2 - ea $22.55 1 $0
AC Pavement
slurry seal5 198,615 sf $0.25 5 $9,931
ac overlay5 198,615 sf $2.00 18 $22,068
Concrete Curb & Gutter
street sweeping6 2.14 miles $23.20 1 $50
Draingage
CDS units2 - ea $2,000.00 1 $0
Traffic Signal
energy7 2 ea $840.00 1 $1,680
maintenance7 2 ea $1,680.00 1 $3,360
Annual Project Specific Public Works Estimate $75,729
Inflation Adjustment to 2019$2%$77,266
Source: City of Dublin, based on June 2018 project plans
1. Tassajara 9; Brannigan 21; Central 6; Dublin Blvd 4
2. Info not provided on type
3. Tassajara 21,050 SF; Brannigan 19,200 SF; Gleason 7,970 SF; Central 6,740 SF; Dublin Blvd 6,180 SF
4. Does not account for benches or bus shelters
5. Tassajara 53900 SF; Brannigan 42,320 SF; Gleason 34,020 SF; Central 14,790 SF; Dublin Blvd 53,585 SF
6. Tassajara 3,220 LF; Brannigan 3,050 LF; Gleason 1,690 LF; Central 1,760 LF; 1,570 LF
7. Tassajara 1 new; Gleason 1 relocate; Central 1 relocate; Dublin Blvd 1 new, 2 relocate
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 40
Appendix 17: Estimate of Annual General Fund Fire Protection Services Costs
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
FY 2019/20
Fire Services General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $14,534,573
Less Fire Services General Fund Revenues1 ($1,021,170)
Fire Services Net General Fund Expenditures $13,513,403
FY 2019/20 Service Population2 77,000
Percentage Variable Factor 75%
Adjusted Fire Services Net Expenditure per Service Population $132
New Service Population in the Plan Area3 1,810
Projected Annual Fire Services Cost $238,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s
1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Budget Summary FY 2019/20; See Appendix 21 for details.
2. See Appendix 2.
3. See Appendix 4.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 41
Appendix 18: Estimate of Annual General Fund Community Development Costs
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
FY 2019/20
Community Developments General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $6,044,749
Less Community Development General Fund Revenues1 ($5,482,882)
Community Development Net General Fund Expenditures $561,867
FY 2019/20 Service Population2 77,000
Percentage Variable Factor 25%
Adjusted Community Development Net Expenditure per Service Population $2
New Service Population in the Plan Area3 1,810
Projected Annual Community Development Cost $3,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s
1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Budget Summary FY 2019/20; See Appendix 21 for details.
2. See Appendix 2.
3. See Appendix 4.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 42
Appendix 19: Estimate of Annual General Fund Other Departments Costs
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
FY 2019/20
City Council General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $513,787
Office of City Manager General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $2,724,108
City Clerk Office's General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $596,467
Human Resources Department General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $1,364,238
City Attorney Office's General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $927,780
Administrative Services Department General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $2,124,795
Total Other Departments General Fund Portion of Expenditures $8,251,175
Less General and Administrative General Fund Revenues1 ($26,816)
Other Departments Net General Fund Expenditures $8,224,359
FY 2019/20 Service Population2 77,000
Percentage Variable Factor 25%
Adjusted Other Department Net Expenditure per Service Population $27
New Service Population in the Plan Area3 1,810
Projected Annual Other Department Costs $48,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s
1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Budget Summary FY 2019/20; See Appendix 21 for details.
2. See Appendix 2.
3. See Appendix 4.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 43
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Total Hard Cost Factor1
Commercial - Retail and Restaurant 54,000 SF $469/SF $25,300,000
Commercial - Movie Theater 66,000 SF $469/SF $31,000,000
Commercial - Medical Office 45,000 SF $469/SF $21,100,000
Hotel - 150 Keys 150 keys $205,000/key $30,800,000
Multifamily Apartments 240 du $290,000/du $69,600,000
Single Family: Cluster 15 du $510,638/du $7,700,000
Single Family: Traditional 115 du $423,010/du $48,600,000
Age-Restricted (55+): Duet 99 du $387,931/du $38,400,000
Age-Restricted (55+): Cluster 97 du $383,688/du $37,200,000
Total Hard Cost $309,700,000
Estimated Construction Material Cost as a percentage of Hard Costs2 50%
Estimated Share with Dublin as a point of Sale3 50%
Estimated Construction Material Sales in City of Dublin $77,425,000
Local Sales and Use Tax Rate 1%
Total One-time Sales and Use Tax Revenues During Construction $770,000
Construction Jobs
Esimated Labor Cost as a percentage of Hard Costs 50%
$154,850,000
$77,160
Estimated Full-time Equivalent One-Year Construction Jobs5 2,007
Note: Figures rounded to closest 10,000s
1. Commercial and multifamily factors based on cost estimate provided by Shea Properties for June 2018 analysis. .
Factors adjusted to $2019 using national CPI. Single family factors based on estimate provided by Shea Properties in Dec. 2019.
2. KMA assumption.
4. Source: Occupational Employment Statistics Survey (OES), May 2019.
5. Based on convention, employment counts reflect a one-year construciton period.
Average Annual Wage for Construction Occupations in Alameda and Contra Costa
Counties, 20194
Estimated Construction Labor Costs
Appendix 20A: Estimate of One-time Sales and Use Tax and Employment Created by Construction
Activities
3. For the purpose of this analysis it is assumed that 50% of the material costs will generate sales/use tax revenue to the city
of Dublin, by general and sub-contractors designating the job site in Dublin as the point of sale for the materials.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 44
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Transfer Tax Rate per $1,000 of Assessed Value1 $0.55
I. Property Transfer Tax from Purchase of Site and Sale to Affiliate
1. Land Sale Date2 12/20/2017
Sale Price2 $48,000,000
Transfer Tax generated from the land sale transaction $26,400
2. Land Sale Date2 6/29/2017
Sale Price2 $80,000,000
Transfer Tax generated from the land sale transaction $44,000
Transfer Tax generated from Land Sale Transactions $70,400
II. Initial Transfer Tax from For-sale Residential
Est. Assessed Property
Value3 Transfer Tax
Single Family: Cluster $17,535,000 $9,644
Single Family: Traditional $162,246,025 $89,235
Age-Restricted (55+): Duet $104,049,000 $57,227
Age-Restricted (55+): Cluster $120,571,000 $66,314
Transfer Tax generated from Sale of for-sale residential units $222,000
Projected Total One-time Initial Property Transfer Tax $292,000
Note: Figures rounded. For the purpose of this analysis, commercial and rental residential development are not included
in the initial Property Transfer tax calculation.
1. Source: http://www.californiacityfinance.com/PropTransfTaxRates.pdf, accessed 07/03/2018.
2. Source: Real Quest
3. See Appendix 5A for details.
Appendix 20B: Estimate of One-time Property Transfer Tax from Purchase of Development Site and from Initial
Sale of Ownership Units
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 45
Appendix 21: FY 2019/20 General Fund Summary
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
General Fund Revenues
FY 2019-20 Basis of KMA Projection
Included in the Analysis
Property Taxes $46,874,754 assessed value, City share of 1% tax
Sales Tax $21,227,378 est. project sales, empl. and resid. spending
Property Transfer Tax $750,000 assessed value (AV), $0.55 per $1,000 of AV
Transient Occupancy Tax $1,400,000 avg. daily room rate, and hotel occupancy
Franchise Fees $4,649,400 service population
Licenses (non-departmental)$137,000 only business license tax included
Subtotal $75,038,532
Deducted from Expenditures Allocation by Department
Licenses & Permits $4,908,815 $4,728,168 Community Dev.
$77,010 Fire Services
$13,637 Police Services
$90,000 Public Works
Finales and Penalties $107,432 $107,432 Police Services
Use Of Money & Property $923,586 $655,338 Parks & Community Svcs.
$268,248 Public Works
Other Revenue $477,597 $299,655 Parks & Community Svcs.
$177,942 Public Works
Charges for Services $9,039,297 $26,816 Human Resources
$754,714 Community Development
$944,160 Fire Services
$39,140 Police Services
$4,379,967 Parks & Community Svcs.
$2,894,500 Public Works
Subtotal $15,456,727
Non-Departmental Revenues
Excluded from the Analysis Reason for Exclusion
Charges For Services $1,030,634 independent of project
Use Of Money & Property $2,180,541 independent of project
Other Revenue $538,184 independent of project
Fines & Penalties $4,000 independent of project
Intergovernmental-State $234,919 independent of project
Subtotal $3,988,278
Total General Fund Revenue $94,483,537
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 46
Appendix 21: FY 2019/20 General Fund Summary
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
General Fund Expenditures1
General Fund Dept. General Net
Portion Fund Revenues Expenditure
City Council $513,787 $513,787
Office of City Manager $2,724,108 $2,724,108
City Clerk's Office $596,467 $596,467
Human Resources $1,364,238 ($26,816)$1,337,422
City Attorney's Office $927,780 $927,780
Administrative Services $2,124,795 $2,124,795
Community Development $6,044,749 ($5,482,882)$561,867
Fire Services $14,534,573 ($1,021,170)$13,513,403
Police Services $22,880,699 ($160,209)$22,720,490
Parks and Community Services $8,892,352 ($5,334,960)$3,557,392
Public Works $13,616,377 ($3,430,690)$10,185,687
$74,219,925 ($15,456,727)$58,763,198
Source: City of Dublin, California, FY 2019/20 General Fund Summary
1. Excludes Non-departmental.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 47
Appendix 22: Summary of Annual Fiscal Impacts to the City of Dublin- Residential Only
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Total Net New
Annual Impacts Annual Impacts1
I. Annual Recurring General Fund Impacts
upon Buildout
Revenues2
Property Tax $1,131,000 $1,124,000
Property Transfer Tax $34,000 $34,000
Property Tax In-lieu of VLF $201,000 $201,000
Sales Tax $77,000 $77,000
Franchise Fees $92,000 $92,000
Total Revenues $1,535,000 $1,528,000
Expenditures3
Police Services Cost ($337,000)($337,000)
Parks and Community Services Cost ($41,000)($41,000)
Public Works Cost ($101,000)($101,000)
Project Specific Public Works ($65,000)($65,000)
Fire Services Cost ($201,000)($201,000)
Community Development Cost ($3,000)($3,000)
Other Department Cost4 ($41,000)($41,000)
Total Expenditures ($789,000)($789,000)
Net Annual Fiscal Surplus/(Deficit)$746,000 $739,000
$ Total
II. One-time Construction Related Revenues
Sales and Use Tax Generated from Construction
Material Purchases5 $500,000
Initial Prop. Transfer Tax from Land Sale Transactions6 $53,000
Initial Prop.Transfer Tax from For-Sale Units6 $222,000
Total One-time Revenues $775,000
1. FY 2017/18 has been assumed as the base year to calculate the net new annual impacts of the project. In FY 2017/18,
the site generated property tax revenues on the basis of the assessed values of its (vacant) land parcels.
2. See Appendices 25 to 29 for individual revenue calculations and assumptions.
4. Includes City Council, Office of the City Manager, City Clerk's Office, Human Resources Department, City Attorney's
Office and Administrative Services department expenditures.
5. See Appendix 36A for details.
6. See Appendix 36B for details.
3. See Appendices 30 to 35 for individual expenditure calculations and assumptions.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 48
Appendix 23: Estimated Project Demographics- Residential Only
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Residential
Average Household Size1 2.81
Residential Vacancy1 4.20%
Total Residential Units2 566
Resident Population 1,524
Service Population3 1,524
1. Source: ESRI Business Analyst.
2. See Appendix 3B.
3. Service Population calculated as resident population plus half of employment.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 49
Appendix 24: Estimated Assessed Value- Residential Only
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Estimated Assessed Value
Commercial $0
Rental Residential $88,000,000 rounded
For-Sale Residential $404,000,000 rounded
Total Estimated AV upon buildout $492,000,000
for detailed calculations see below
Assessed Value of Rental (high density) Residential Properties
Estimated
APN1 Tax Area2 Area (Acres)3 Land Value2
985-0051-004 and -005 26-023 3.8 $4,095,910
Est. Improvement
Residential Product Type Hard Cost4 Soft Cost5 Value
Multifamily Apartments $69,600,000 $13,920,000 $83,520,000
Total Est. Assessed Value of Rental Residential Development $87,616,000
Assessed Value of For-sale Residential Properties
Sale Price Est. Assessed
For-sale Residential Product Type Per Unit4 No. of Units1 Value
Single Family: Cluster $1,169,000 15 $17,535,000
Single Family: Traditional $1,410,835 115 $162,246,025
Age-Restricted (55+): Duet $1,051,000 99 $104,049,000
Age-Restricted (55+): Cluster $1,243,000 97 $120,571,000
Total Est. Assessed Value of For-sale Residential Development $404,401,000
Total Est. Assessed Value upon Buildout $492,000,000
<Less> FY 2017/18 Assessed Value (Land Value)6 -$3,257,291
Net New Assessed Value upon Buildout $489,000,000
Note: Final Figure rounded to closest 1,000,000s.
1. Per City of Dublin based on applicant's submittal in October 2019.
2. Source: RealQuest, see Appendix 5B for details. For the purpose of this analysis, land value of completed project
has been assumed to be equal to FY 2019/20 assessed land value.
3. Per the Site Plan (June 4, 2019), parcels 985-0051-004 & -005 (22.14 acres) are designated for mixed-use
commercial and rental residential). See Appendix 5B for distribution of land area for the two parcels.
4. See Appendix 21A for hard cost assumptions.
5. KMA estimates that a portion of soft costs would be included in assessed values. The portion assumed is
equivalent to 20% of hard costs.
6. Includes FY 2017/18 assessed land values attributable to the residential development. See Appendix 5B for details.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 50
Appendix 25: Estimate of Annual Property Tax Revenues- Residential Only
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Total New1
Total Estimated Assessed Value2 $492,000,000 $489,000,000
Base 1% Property Tax Levy $4,920,000 $4,890,000
Tax Rate Area 26-023 26-023
City of Dublin General Fund's portion of Base 1% Property Tax (Post-ERAF)2 22.98%22.98%
Estimate of Annual Property Tax Revenues $1,131,000 $1,124,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s.
1. FY 2017/18 has been assumed as the base year to estimate the new annual impacts of the project.
2. See Appendix 24 for details.
3. Estimated based on 19-20 ERAF Contribution Percentages
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 51
Appendix 26: Estimate of Annual Property Transfer Tax Revenues- Residential Only
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Transfer Tax Rate per $1,000 of Assessed Value1 $0.55
Holding Period Assumptions
Multifamily Apartments2 20 years
Single Family Detached2 7 years
Est. Assessed Property
Land Use Value3 Transfer Tax
Residential
Multifamily Apartments $87,616,000 $2,409
Single Family Detached5 $404,401,000 $31,774
Total $492,000,000 $34,000
Estimate of Annual Property Transfer Tax Revenues $34,000
Note: Figures rounded
1. Source: http://www.californiacityfinance.com/PropTransfTaxRates.pdf, accessed 07/03/2018.
2. KMA Assumption.
3. See Appendix 24 for details.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 52
Appendix 27: Estimate of Annual Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee Revenues- Residential Only
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
2004-05 Vehicle License Fee Adjusted Amount1,2 $2,278,846
2004-05 Assessed Valuation1,2 $5,553,452,954
VLF per $1,000 in AV Growth $0.41
Estimated Assessed Value Upon Buildout3 $492,000,000
<Less> FY 2017/18 Assessed Value (Land Value)4 ($3,257,291)
Net New Assessed Value upon Buildout (rounded)$489,000,000
Estimate of Annual Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF Revenues $201,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s
1. As per SB 1096, growth of property tax in lieu of VLF is proportional to growth in AV since 2004/05.
2. VLF distribution in 2004/05 per the California State Controller's Office.
3. See Appendix 24.
4. Includes FY 2017/18 assessed land values attributable to the residential development. See Appendix 5B for details.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 53
Appendix 28: Estimate of Annual Sales Tax Revenues from Resident Spending
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
City of Dublin's share of sales tax of total taxable Sales1 1.00%
Percentage of Household Income Spent on Taxable Retail Sales2 26.5%
No. of Monthly Est. HH HH Taxable Total Retail
Rental Multi-Family HH3 Area (SF)4 Rent5 Income6 Retail Spending Spending
Studios 11 558 $1,902 $76,000 $20,149 $221,635
1 Bedroom 125 741 $2,525 $101,000 $26,777 $3,347,064
2 Bedroom 80 1113 $3,793 $152,000 $40,297 $3,223,786
3 Bedroom 11 1380 $4,703 $188,000 $49,841 $548,256
Estimated Taxable Retail Spending by Multifamily Residential HH $7,340,741
City of Dublin (off-site) Capture Rate7 30%
Onsite Capture Rate7 20%
Spending Captured Outside City of Dublin7 50%
100%
Estimated Off-site Taxable Sales from Multifamily Resident Spending $2,202,000
Estimated Sales Tax from off-site Multifamily Resident Spending $22,000
No. of Est. Sale Est. HH HH Taxable Total Retail
For-sale Units HH3 Area (SF)4 Price8 Income9 Retail Spending Spending
SF: Cluster 14 2247 $1,169,000 $212,000 $56,204 $786,858
SF: Traditional 109 2935 $1,410,835 $256,000 $67,869 $7,397,741
55+: Duet 94 1927 $1,051,000 $191,000 $50,637 $4,759,857
55+: Cluster 92 2131 $1,243,000 $226,000 $59,916 $5,512,250
Estimated Taxable Retail Spending by For-sale Residential HH $18,456,706
City of Dublin (off-site) Capture Rate7 30%
Onsite Capture Rate7 20%
Spending Captured Outside City of Dublin7 50%
100%
Estimated off-site Taxable Sales from for-sale Units' Resident Spending $5,537,000
Estimated Sales Tax from off-site for-sale Units' Resident Spending $55,000
Estimate of Annual Sales Tax Revenues from Resident Spending $77,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s.
1. Source: Dublin Municipal Code.
2. Based on the average percentage of income spent on Retail and Food services for Nine County Bay Area
residents; Source: CA Board of Equalization (2017).
3. Includes a 5% vacancy factor.
4. See Appendix 3B.
5. Estimated on the basis of $3.41/SF.
6. Estimated based on the assumption that 30% of the annual household income goes towards rent.
7. KMA assumption.
8. Based on range provided by Shea Properties.
9. Estimated based on the assumption that 30% of the household income goes towards mortgage payment. Mortgage
is calculated as a self amortizing 30 year loan at 5.5% on 80% of the sale price.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 54
Appendix 29: Estimate of Annual Franchise Fee Revenues- Residential Only
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Franchise Fee 2019/201,2 $4,649,400
FY 2019/20 Service Population3 77,000
Estimated Franchise Fee per Service Population $60
New Service Population in the Plan Area4 1,524
Estimate of Annual Franchise Fee Revenues $92,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1000s
1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Budget Summary FY 2019/20; See Appendix 21 for details.
2. Includes Electric, Gas, Garbage and Cable Franchise Taxes.
3. See Appendix 2.
4. See Appendix 23.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 55
Appendix 30: Estimate of Annual Police Services Costs- Residential Only
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
FY 2019/20
Police Services General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $22,880,699
Less Police Services General Fund Revenues1 ($160,209)
Police Services Net General Fund Expenditures $22,720,490
FY 2019/20 Service Population2 77,000
Percentage Variable Factor 75%
Adjusted Police Services Net Expenditure per Service Population $221
New Service Population in the Plan Area3 1,524
Estimate of Annual Police Services Costs $337,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1000s
1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Budget Summary FY 2019/20; See Appendix 21 for details.
2. See Appendix 2.
3. See Appendix 23.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 56
Appendix 31: Estimate of Annual Parks and Community Services Costs- Residential Only
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
FY 2019/20
Parks and Community Services General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $8,892,352
Less Parks and Community Services General Fund Revenues1 ($5,334,960)
Parks and Community Services Net General Fund Expenditures $3,557,392
FY 2019/20 Resident Population2 66,147
Percentage Variable Factor 50%
Adjusted Parks and Comm. Services Net Expenditure per Resident Pop.$27
New Resident Population in the Plan Area3 1,524
Estimate of Annual Parks and Community Services Costs $41,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1000s
1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Budget Summary FY 2019/20; See Appendix 21 for details.
2. See Appendix 2.
3. See Appendix 23.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 57
Appendix 32A: Estimate of Annual Public Works Costs- Residential Only
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
FY 2019/20
Public Works General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $13,616,377
Less Environmental Services General Fund Revenues1 ($3,430,690)
Public Works Net General Fund Expenditures $10,185,687
FY 2019/20 Service Population2 77,000
Percentage Variable Factor 50%
Adjusted Public Works Net Expenditure per Resident Population $66
New Service Population in the Plan Area3 1,524
Estimate of Annual Public Works Costs $101,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1000s
1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Budget Summary FY 2019/20; See Appendix 21 for details.
2. See Appendix 2.
3. See Appendix 23.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 58
Appendix 32B: Estimate of Annual Project Specific Public Works Costs- Residential Only
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Frequency
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost (in Years)Annual Cost
Street Lights
200 HPSV1 40 ea $125.34 1 $5,014
100 MH2 - ea $125.34 1 $0
70 MH2 - ea $48.43 1 $0
Landscaping4
6'-planter3 61,140 sf $0.55 1 $33,627
16'-median2 - sf $0.55 1 $0
trees2 - ea $22.55 1 $0
AC Pavement
slurry seal5 198,615 sf $0.25 5 $9,931
ac overlay5 198,615 sf $2.00 18 $22,068
Concrete Curb & Gutter
street sweeping6 2.14 miles $23.20 1 $50
Draingage
CDS units2 - ea $2,000.00 1 $0
Traffic Signal
energy7 2 ea $840.00 1 $1,680
maintenance7 2 ea $1,680.00 1 $3,360
Total Annual Project Specific Public Works Estimate $75,729
Inflation Adjustment 2.03%$77,266
Service Population of entire Project upon Buildout 1,810
Service Population of Residential component 1,524
Estimate of Annual Project Specific Public Works Costs
attributable to Residential Development10 84%of total estimates $65,000
Source: City of Dublin based on June 2018 project plans
1. Tassajara 9; Brannigan 21; Central 6; Dublin Blvd 4
2. Info not provided on type
3. Tassajara 21,050 SF; Brannigan 19,200 SF; Gleason 7,970 SF; Central 6,740 SF; Dublin Blvd 6,180 SF
4. Does not account for benches or bus shelters
5. Tassajara 53900 SF; Brannigan 42,320 SF; Gleason 34,020 SF; Central 14,790 SF; Dublin Blvd 53,585 SF
6. Tassajara 3,220 LF; Brannigan 3,050 LF; Gleason 1,690 LF; Central 1,760 LF; 1,570 LF
7. Tassajara 1 new; Gleason 1 relocate; Central 1 relocate; Dublin Blvd 1 new, 2 relocate
8. See Appendix 4
9. See Appendix 23
10. Estimated based on the portion of Service Population attributable to residential development.
100% of total serv. pop
84% of total serv. pop
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 59
Appendix 33: Estimate of Annual Fire Services Costs- Residential Only
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
FY 2019/20
Fire Services General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $14,534,573
Less Fire Services General Fund Revenues1 ($1,021,170)
Fire Services Net General Fund Expenditures $13,513,403
FY 2019/20 Service Population2 77,000
Percentage Variable Factor 75%
Adjusted Fire Services Net Expenditure per Service Population $132
New Service Population in the Plan Area3 1,524
Estimate of Annual Fire Services Costs $201,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1000s
1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Budget Summary FY 2019/20; See Appendix 21 for details.
2. See Appendix 2.
3. See Appendix 23.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 60
Appendix 34: Estimate of Annual Community Development Costs- Residential Only
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
FY 2019/20
Community Developments General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $6,044,749
Less Community Development General Fund Revenues1 ($5,482,882)
Community Development Net General Fund Expenditures $561,867
FY 2019/20 Service Population2 77,000
Percentage Variable Factor 25%
Adjusted Community Development Net Expenditure per Service Population $2
New Service Population in the Plan Area3 1,524
Estimate of Annual Community Development Costs $3,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1000s
1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Budget Summary FY 2019/20; See Appendix 21 for details.
2. See Appendix 2.
3. See Appendix 23.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 61
Appendix 35: Estimate of Annual Other Departments Costs- Residential Only
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
FY 2019/20
City Council General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $513,787
Office of City Manager General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $2,724,108
City Clerk Office's General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $596,467
Human Resources Department General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $1,337,422
City Attorney Office's General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $927,780
Administrative Services Department General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $2,124,795
Total Other Departments General Fund Portion of Expenditures $8,224,359
Less General and Administrative General Fund Revenues1 ($26,816)
Other Departments Net General Fund Expenditures $8,197,543
FY 2019/20 Service Population2 77,000
Percentage Variable Factor 25%
Adjusted Other Department Net Expenditure per Service Population $27
New Service Population in the Plan Area3 1,524
Estimate of Annual Other Department Costs $41,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1000s
1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Budget Summary FY 2019/20; See Appendix 21 for details.
2. See Appendix 2.
3. See Appendix 23.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 62
Appendix 36A: Estimate of One-time Sales and Use Tax from Construction Activities- Residential Only
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Total Hard Cost1
Multifamily Apartments $69,600,000
Single Family Conventional $56,300,000
Single Family Age-Restricted $75,600,000
Total Hard Cost $201,500,000
Estimated Construction Material Cost as a percentage of Hard Costs2 50%
Estimated Share with Dublin as a point of Sale3 50%
Estimated Construction Material Sales in Dublin $50,375,000
Local Sales and Use Tax Rate 1%
Estimate of Total One-time Sales and Use Tax Revenues During Construction $500,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 10,000s
1. Appendix 20A.
2. KMA assumption.
3. For the purpose of this analysis it has been assume that 50% of the material costs will generate sales tax revenue
to the city of Dublin, by general and sub-contractors designating the job site in Dublin as the point of sale for the materials.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 63
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Transfer Tax Rate per $1,000 of Assessed Value1 $0.55
I. Property Transfer Tax from Initial Purchase of Development Site and Sale to Affiliate
1.Sale Date2 12/20/2017
Sale Price (Portion attributable to Residential Development)2 $36,459,359
Transfer Tax generated from the land sale transaction $20,000
2. Sale Date2 6/29/2017
Sale Price (Portion attributable to Residential Development)2 $60,765,598
Transfer Tax generated from the land sale transaction $33,000
Transfer Tax generated from Land Sale Transaction $53,000
II. Initial Transfer Tax from For-sale Residential
Est. Assessed Property
Value2 Transfer Tax
Single Family: Cluster $17,535,000 $9,644
Single Family: Traditional $162,246,025 $89,235
Age-Restricted (55+): Duet $104,049,000 $57,227
Age-Restricted (55+): Cluster $120,571,000 $66,314
Transfer Tax generated from Sale of for-sale residential units $222,000
Estimate of Total One-time Initial Property Transfer Tax $275,000
Note: Figures rounded
1. Source: http://www.californiacityfinance.com/PropTransfTaxRates.pdf, accessed 07/03/2018.
2. See Appendix 24 for details.
Appendix 36B: Estimate of One-time Property Transfer Tax from Purchase of Development Site and from Initial
Sale of Ownership Residential Units Only
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Analysis 06 08 20.xlsx Page 64
1
RESOLUTION NO. XX – 20
AN RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT FINDINGS, FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES, A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM FOR THE AT DUBLIN PROJECT
PLPA 2017-00061
(APNS 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, AND 985-0052-025)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Shea Properties in partnership with SCS Development
Company, is requesting a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
and Vesting Tentative Maps for the At Dublin project. The proposed project includes up to 566
residential units comprised of apartments, detached small-lot single-family homes and 55 and
older age restricted single-family homes, up to 240,000 square feet of retail commercial
development, and related infrastructure and landscape improvements. Requested land use
approvals include a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment,
Planned Development Rezoning (Stage 1 and Stage 2), Vesting Tentative Map Nos. 8440, 8449
and 8452, a Street Vacation and a Development Agreement, among other related actions.
These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the “At Dublin Project” or
the “Project;” and
WHEREAS, the Project site is approximately 76.9 acres generally bound by Tassajara
Road, Gleason Drive, Brannigan Street and I -580 (APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-
0051-006, 985-0052-024, and 985-0052-025); and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State
guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documen ts be prepared. It was determined that
an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared to analyze the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation, dated January 17, 2018, to public
agencies and interested parties for consultation on the scope of the EIR. The City also
conducted a public scoping meeting on January 30, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated July
2018 for the proposed Project that reflected the City’s independent judgment and analysis of the
potential environmental impacts of the Project (SCH No. 2018012027). The Draft EIR is
attached as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period from July 6,
2018 through August 20, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the City received 12 comment letters from State, regional, and local
agencies as well as interested individuals and organizations during the public review period and
1 additional letter from the City of Livermore after the close of the comment period. In
accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the City prepared written responses to all the
2
comments received during the public comment period, including the letter from the City of
Livermore.
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Final EIR (that includes the Responses to Comments),
dated October 2018, for the proposed Project, which included an annotated copy of each
comment letter identifying specific comments, responses to each specific comment, and
clarifications and minor corrections to information presented in the D raft EIR. The Final EIR is
attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution and is incorporated herein by reference. The complete
At Dublin Project EIR incorporates the Draft EIR and the Final EIR together. The responses to
comments provide the City’s good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised
by the comments; and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2018, after the release of the Final EIR, the City received
additional comment letters regarding the EIR. These comments were reviewed, and it was
determined that no new and/or substantial information was presented that was not previously
evaluated per the City’s CEQA significance thresholds. Although responses to these comments
are not required under CEQA, the City responded to them and as a result further clarification
was made to EIR as attached to the November 20, 2018 City Council Staff Report. The changes
to the EIR are attached as Exhibit C; and
WHEREAS, in October 2019, the Applicant submitte d a revised Project in response to
public comments, consisting of up to 566 residential units comprised of apartments, detached
small-lot single family homes and 55 and older age restricted single-family homes, up to
240,000 square feet of retail commercial development, and related infrastructure and landscape
improvements. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, the City analyzed the revised
Project and determined that there was no new significant information, or substantially more
severe, significant environmental impact as a result of the revised Project, requiring recirculation
of the EIR. The Errata dated January 2020 is attached as Exhibit D to this Resolution and is
incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR identified potentially significant environmental effects
anticipated as a result of the Project such as, aesthetics, air quality, biological resources,
cultural and tribal cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions,
hazards/hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, population and
housing, public services and utilities, energy and transportation, most of which can be
substantially reduced through mitigation measures; therefore, approval of the Project must
include impact and mitigation findings as set forth in attached Exhibit E; and
WHEREAS, some of the impacts cannot be lessened to a level of less than significan t;
therefore, approval of the Project must include findings regarding alternatives as set forth in
attached Exhibit F, and must include a Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in
attached Exhibit G; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project on February
25, 2020 at which time they reviewed and considered the Draft and Final EIRs, and all reports,
recommendations and testimony before them. Following the public hearing, the Planning
Commission recommended that the City Council deny the project and therefore did not take
action on the EIR (Resolution No. 20-05); and
3
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Planning Commission minute s and
recommendation, a staff report, the Draft and Final EIRs, and all written and oral testimony at a
duly noticed public hearing on June 16, 2020; and
WHEREAS, Staff Report dated June 16, 2020 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project and Draft and Final EIR for the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Draft and Final EIRs reflect the City’s independent judgment and
analysis on the potential for environmental impacts and constitute the Environmental Impact
Report for the At Dublin Project; and
WHEREAS, the Draft and Final EIRs are separately bound documents, incorporated
herein by reference, and are available for review in the City community development
department, file PLPA-2017-00061. The custodian of the documents and other materials which
constitute the record of proceedings for the At Dublin project is the City of Dublin Community
Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA 94568; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigation and Monitoring Program, as required by CEQA, is contained in
attached Exhibit H.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council certifies the following.
A. The EIR for the At Dublin project has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA
Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines.
B. The EIR for the At Dublin project was presented to and reviewed by the City Council prior to
taking action on the AT Dublin project.
C. The EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis as to the potential
environmental effects of the At Dublin project. The EIR provides information to the decision-
makers and the public on the environmental consequences of the Project.
D. The EIR adequately describes the Project, its significant environmental impacts, mitigation
measures and a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council certifies the EIR consisting of
the Draft EIR as set forth in Exhibit A, the Final EIR as set forth in Exhibit B, amendments set
forth in Exhibit C and Errata as set forth in Exhibit D, adopts the impact and mitigation findings
set forth in Exhibit E, the findings regarding alternatives set forth in Exhibit F, the Statement of
Overriding Considerations set forth in Exhibit G, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program set forth in Exhibit H, which exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H are incorporated herein
by reference
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this
16th day of June 2020, by the following votes:
AYES:
4
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Due to the size of this attachment, please use link below to view in
full
Attachment 11 – Exhibit A to the Resolution - Draft EIR
Due to the size of this document, please use link
below to view Attachment 12.
Exhibit B to the Resolution - Final EIR
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-16 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
11/9/18
Nesting Birds
The project has the potential to impact special-status and non-special-status native nesting
birds (i.e., Loggerhead shrike and White-tailed kites) protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA) and/or California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). Baseline protections for most native
birds under federal law and state codes include active nests (those with eggs or young).
Recently, the U.S. Department of the Interior issued guidance clarifying that the MBTA only
applies to intentional/deliberate killing, harm, or collection of covered species (including active
nests). According to the guidance, unintentional impacts to birds/nests that occur within the
context of otherwise lawful activities are not violations of the MBTA. However, ambiguity
remains regarding application of the CFGC, as well as the extent to which minimization and
avoidance measures are still required under the MBTA. Therefore, avoidance of nesting birds is
considered a “best practice” in the San Francisco Bay region and avoids potential enforcement
action by the CDFW. Nesting bird pre-construction survey obligations are a common
component of various permits and authorizations, including CEQA documents and even local
grading permits, and as such may be deemed applicable to project activities within the project
area.
Project activities, such as vegetation removal and ground disturbance associated with
development, would have the potential to affect these species by causing direct mortality of
eggs or young, or by causing auditory, vibratory, and/ or visual disturbance of a sufficient level
to cause abandonment of an active nest. If project activities occur during the nesting season,
which extends from February 1 through August 31, nests of both special-status and non-special-
status native birds could be impacted by construction and other ground disturbing activities.
Implementation of MM BIO-1.3: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures would reduce this potential
impact to a less-than-significant level (Class II).
Mitigation for Impact BIO-1
MM BIO-1.1: Special-Status Plants Avoidance and Mitigation
Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for development activities
involving ground disturbance, the project applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable
to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following:
Prior to any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities, a focused survey shall be
conducted to determine the presence of Congdon’s tarplant or other special-status species with
potential to occur within the project area. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the
Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and
Natural Communities (CDFG 2009). These guidelines require rare plant surveys to be
conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both “evident” and
identifiable. Field surveys shall be scheduled to coincide with known blooming periods, and/or
during periods of physiological development that are necessary to identify the plant species of
concern. If no special-status plant species are found, then the project will not have any impacts
City of Dublin At Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-17
Draft EIR
11/9/18
to the species and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. If any of the species are
found on-site and cannot be avoided, the following measures shall be required:
1. If the survey determines that Congdon’s tarplant or other special-status species are
present within or adjacent to the project site, direct and indirect impacts of the project
on the species shall be avoided where feasible through the establishment of activity
exclusion zones, where no ground-disturbing activities shall take place, including
construction of new facilities, construction staging, or other temporary work areas.
Activity exclusion zones for special-status plant species shall be established prior to
construction activities around each occupied habitat site, the boundaries of which shall
be clearly marked with standard orange plastic construction exclusion fencing or its
equivalent. The establishment of activity exclusion zones shall not be required if no
construction-related disturbances would occur within 250 feet of the occupied habitat
site. The size of activity exclusion zones may be reduced through consultation with a
qualified biologist and with concurrence from CDFW based on site-specific conditions.
2. If exclusion zones and avoidance of impacts on Congdon’s tarplant or other special-
status species within the project area are not feasible, then the loss of individuals or
occupied habitat of special-status plants shall be compensated for through the
acquisition, protection, and subsequent management of other existing occurrences.
Before the implementation of compensation measures, the project’s applicant shall
provide detailed information to the CDFW and lead agency on the quality of preserved
habitat, location of the preserved occurrences, provisions for protecting and managing
the areas, the responsible parties involved, and other pertinent information that
demonstrates that the feasibility of the compensation population will be properly
preserved and managed. A mitigation plan identifying appropriate mitigation ratios at a
minimum ratio of 1:1 [one preserved acre for each impacted acre] to ensure no net loss
of acreage shall be developed in consultation with, and approved by, the CDFW and
approved by the City prior to the commencement of any activities that would impact
Congdon’s tarplant or other species with potential to occur within the project area. A
mitigation plan may include but is not limited to the following: the acquisition of off-site
mitigation areas presently supporting the Congdon’s tarplant or other special-status
species, purchase of credits in a mitigation bank that is approved to sell credits for
special-status plants, or payment of in-lieu fees to a public agency or conservation
organization (e.g., a local land trust) for the preservation and management of existing
populations of special-status plants.
MM BIO-1.2: Burrowing Owl Avoidance, and Exclusion and Required Measures
Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for development activities
involving ground disturbance, the project applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable
to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following:
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-18 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
11/9/18
Mitigate for Loss of Burrowing Owl Habitat
The majority of project site, with the exception of delineated wetlands, developed areas, and
areas with tree cover (73.64 acres), has been determined to potentially provide habitat or
foraging areas for burrowing owl. Therefore, the applicant shall implement compensatory
mitigation for loss of owl habitat in accordance with the standards set forth in the Required
Mitigation Plan section below.
Additional measures below will avoid direct impacts to individuals that may occupy the site
during construction and implementation of the project.
Conduct a Burrowing Owl Survey
Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall retain a qualified
biologist to conduct two pre-construction surveys for the Western burrowing owl on the project
site.
The first survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to ground-disturbing activities
and the second survey within 48 hours of initial ground disturbance. The surveys shall be
conducted in accordance with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the
surveys determine owls are present, then the measures set forth below shall be followed.
Implement Avoidance Measures
If direct impacts to owls can be avoided, prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the
project applicant shall implement the following avoidance measures during all phases of
construction to reduce or eliminate potential impacts to California burrowing owls.
▪ A pre-construction survey shall be performed prior to start of ground disturbance
activities. This survey will occur regardless of the time of year, as burrowing owls
may use the project site during the non-nesting season. The survey shall be
performed according to the standards set forth by the Staff Report for Burrowing
Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012).
▪ The project site should be managed to prevent burrowing owl from occupying the
site prior to any project activities
▪ All suitable burrows should be closed by hand once it has been determined that the
burrow is unoccupied.
▪ Maintenance of the property to ensure burrows are not rebuilt will be necessary
throughout the year to preclude the presence of burrowing owl and suitable
burrowing owl habitat. Maintenance should occur approximately every 8 weeks,
and burrows should be inspected prior to closure to ensure no burrowing owl are
present. The frequency of burrow closure may be adjusted based upon ground
squirrel and burrow reestablishment progress.
City of Dublin At Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-19
Draft EIR
11/9/18
▪ The debris within the project site should be removed.
▪ If discing is chosen as a preferred method for burrow maintenance, it is
recommended that any sensitive biological resources (populations of rare plants,
wetland boundaries and any active bird nests, etc.) be flagged by a qualified
biologist and avoided.
Conduct Burrow Exclusion
If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible, prior to the first ground-
disturbing activities, the project applicant, in consultation with the CDFW, shall prepare a
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan as indicated and following the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on
Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Monitoring of the excluded owls shall be carried out as per the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2012 Staff Report.
Prepare and Implement aRequired Mitigation Plan
If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible and project activities may result
in impacts to nesting, occupied, and satellite burrows and/or burrowing owl habitat, tThe
project applicant shall consult with the CDFW and develop a detailed mitigation plan that shall
include replacement of impacted habitat, number of burrows, and burrowing owl at a ratio
approved by CDFW to ensure no net loss of species. The mitigation plan shall be based on
comply with the requirements set forth in Appendix A of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on
Burrowing Owl Mitigation and the plan shall be reviewed and accepted approved by CDFW and
the City prior to the first ground-disturbing activities.
MM BIO-1.3: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures
Prior to obtaining the first site grading building or other permit for development activities from
February 1 to August 31, the applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the
Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following:
Pre-construction Breeding Bird Surveys
No more than 14 days prior to initial ground disturbance and vegetation removal during the
nesting season (February 1 to August 31), the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist
to perform pre-construction breeding bird surveys. If any nests are found, they shall be flagged
and protected with a suitable buffer based on the species. Buffer distance may vary based on
species and conditions, but is typically at least 50 feet, and up to 250 feet for raptors. As used
in this measure, “suitable” means the distance a qualified biologist determines is necessary to
ensure no disturbance to nesting. The buffer distance is measured as the straight-line distance
between an active nest and the activity, taking both horizontal and vertical distance into
account. This mitigation measure does not apply to ground disturbance and vegetation
removal activities that occur outside of the nesting season (September 1 to January 31).
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-22 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
11/9/18
project site does not support core, critical, or unique populations essential to recovery and
long‐term survival of these species.
Impact BIO-6: Contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on biological resources (Class
II).
As stated above, the project would not result in a net loss of riparian habitat and would not
result in a loss of any heritage trees.
The project would affect 0.66 acres of seasonal wetlands, which would considerably contribute
to the significant cumulative biological impacts associated with past, present, and reasonably
future projects. Implementation of MM BIO-3.1 would reduce the project’s contribution to
less-than-cumulatively considerable.
The proposed project would have potentially significant impacts related to the loss of potential
habitat for special-status species, including The project’s impacts to Congdon’s tarplant, San
Joaquin spearscale, Saline clover, Western Burrowing Owl, Loggerhead shrike, and White-tailed
kite. would be reduced through adherence to Implementation of MM BIO-1.1,. MM BIO-1.2,
and MM BIO-1.3. would reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. In addition, the
revised MM BIO 1.3 would ensure mitigation for impacts to burrowing owl habitat, and would
therefore reduce cumulative impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Project-related biological impacts are considered and mitigated consistent with local, state and
federal regulations, which includes compliance with mitigation for loss of burrowing owl habitat
and wetlands. Although past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects may result in
impacts to special-status plants and special-status wildlife, such impacts would be site-specific
and could be mitigated through adherence to similar standard mitigation. The required
mitigation would reduce the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative impact on
wetlands and western burrowing owl habitat to less than cumulatively considerable. As such,
cumulative impacts to special-species plants and wildlife species would be less than significant.
7.5.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Table 7-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Biological Resources summarizes
the environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures for the
project with regard to biological resources.
At Dublin
Errata to the Final EIR
January 16, 2020
Planning Application Number: PLPA-2017-00061
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page i
1/16/20
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Prior CEQA Analysis 1
At Dublin EIR 1
Findings 2
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088.5(b) 2
Revised Project Description 4
Land Uses 4
Park Standards 6
Circulation and Access 6
Grading 8
Infrastructure 8
Project Phasing 9
Project Approvals 9
Environmental Analysis 10
Aesthetics 10
Air Quality 10
Biological Resources 11
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources 12
Geology and Soils 12
Greenhouse Gas Emissions 13
Hazards and Hazardous Materials 13
Hydrology and Water Quality 14
Land Use and Planning 15
Noise 15
Population and Housing 16
Public Services 17
Transportation/Traffic 17
Utilities and Service Systems 26
Energy Conservation 27
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page ii
1/16/20
List of Figures
Figure 1: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations
Figure 2: Conceptual Site Plan
Figure 3: Phasing Plan
Figure 4: Project Renderings (a-e)
Note: All figures are included at the end of the document.
List of Tables
Table 1: At Dublin – Revised Project Land Use Summary 4
Table 2: New Project Weekday Trip Generation 20
Table 3: New Project Saturday Trip Generation 21
Table 4: Weekday Trip Generation Comparison 2018 vs 2019 21
Table 5: Existing Plus Project Weekday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 22
Table 6: Existing Plus Project Saturday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 22
Table 7: Near-term (2025) Plus Project Weekday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 23
Table 8: Near-term (2025) Plus Project Saturday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 24
Table 9: Long-term (2040) Plus Project Weekday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 25
Table 10: Long-term (2040) Plus Project Saturday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 25
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 1
1/16/20
At Dublin
Errata to the Final EIR
Introduction
This Errata documents changes to the At Dublin Final EIR (the Final EIR) based on proposed
changes to the project. It analyzes changes from the previous At Dublin project (the previous
project) analyzed in the Final EIR to the revised At Dublin project (the revised project) in context
of CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 (b) and concludes that none of the conditions in Section
15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines are met, and recirculation is not required.
Because the revised project represents a lower intensity of use as compared the previous
project, this Errata concludes that there are no substantial changes with respect to the
circumstances under which the revised project would require major revisions of the previous
environmental analysis due to the involvement of new significant environmenta l effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. In addition, the
EIR has not been changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to
comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to
mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project's
proponents have declined to implement. Furthermore, the revised project would be subject to
all applicable adopted mitigation measures from the prior Final EIR.
This Errata summarizes each environmental resource, documenting the characteristics of the
revised project, the CEQA analysis for the previous project, and conclusions as to why no
standards for recirculation are met for the revised project.
Prior CEQA Analysis
At Dublin EIR
On October 3, 2017, the Dublin City Council approved the initiation of a General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to evaluate changing the land use designation of
the project site.
On October 13, 2017, the City received an application for the previous project. As part of the
City’s review of the previous project, staff analyzed the impacts from the land use change;
completed a fiscal impact analysis of the proposed land use changes; conducted environmental
review and prepared an environmental impact report; and prepared an analysis of the previous
project for consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council.
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) was released on July 6, 2018, for a 45-public
review period, which ended on August 20, 2018. The Final EIR, which includes responses to
comments received on the Draft EIR, was released on October 24, 2018.
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 2
1/16/20
On October 30, 2018, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to review the previous
project and made a recommendation to City Council to deny the General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Amendments and the entirety of the previous project. On November 20,
2018, following a request from the project applicant (the applicant), the City Council continued
the public hearing to an undetermined future date.
Since the November 20, 2018 meeting, the applicant has considered various land plan revisions
to the project site. The City Council held a Study Session on June 4, 2019 and received a
presentation from the applicant regarding the potential project revisions. No action was t aken
nor were any approvals granted at this meeting.
In October 2019, the applicant submitted revised project materials in response to public
comments received. The revised project results in a reconfiguration of land uses and a
reduction of 114 residential units and a reduction of 214,500 square feet of commercial uses.
Findings
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088.5(b)
This Errata documents whether there are any changes to the environmental impact analysis in
the Final EIR due to the revised project’s changes to the previous project. As discussed below,
these project modifications would not result in new or substantially severe significant impacts
and does not warrant recirculation of the EIR.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires that an EIR that has been made available for public
review, but not yet certified, be recirculated only if significant new information has been added
to the EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5(b), recirculation is not required where
the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant
modifications to an adequate EIR. The relevant portions of CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5
read as follows:
(a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to
the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under
Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term “information ” can
include changes in the revised project or environmental setting as well as additional data or
other information. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is
changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a
substantial adverse environmental effect of the revised project or a feasible way to mitigate or
avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the revised project’s
proponents have declined to implement. “Signif icant new information” requiring recirculation
include, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the revised project or
from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 3
1/16/20
Finding: There are no substantial changes to the revised project as compared to those analyzed
in the At Dublin Final EIR. The revised project land uses on the project site are similar to the
previous project, will not result in any additional significant impacts, and no additional or
different mitigation measures are proposed.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless
mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
Finding: There are no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously
identified in the At Dublin Final EIR. No new mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts
of the revised project.
(3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from
others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the
revised project, but the revised project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
Finding: There are no changes as compared to those assumed in the At Dublin Final EIR project
alternatives or mitigation measures that would lessen the environmental impacts that have
been rejected by the previous project applicant. No new mitigation measures are required to
reduce impacts of the revised project.
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in
nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
Finding: The Draft EIR adequately addressed project impacts and provided a meaningful
opportunity for public comments as evidenced by the comment letters submitted by responsible
agencies and the public. Response to those comments were included in the Final EIR.
(b) Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely
clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.
The information contained in this Errata merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant
changes to the information that has already been presented in the EIR. In addition, the
modifications to the EIR are not significant because the EIR is not changed in a way that
deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse
environmental effect of the revised project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect
(including a feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to
implement. Based on the above, the clarification to the EIR would not result in any new
significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any impact already identified in
the EIR. In addition, this Errata to the Final EIR merely clarifies, amplifies or makes insignificant
refinements to the information that has already been presented in the Final EIR.
Thus, none of the conditions in Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines are met and
recirculation is not required.
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 4
1/16/20
Revised Project Description
The applicant has submitted an application for a revised project which would reduce the
number of residential units to 566 consisting of 326 for-sale single-family homes and duplexes
and 240 multi-family apartment homes. The revised project distributes a lower density
residential product across the property north of Dublin Boulevard and concentrating the mixed‐
use/commercial south of Dublin Boulevard. The mixed‐use would allow up to 240,000 square
feet of non‐residential uses and up to 240 residential units. Additionally, the revised project
proposes Planning Area 2 as an age restricted residential community.
As shown in Table 1: At Dublin – Revised Project Land Use Summary, the revised project
proposes a reduction of residential units from 680 units to 566 units, 114 less units as
compared to the previous project. Commercial square footage would be reduced from 454,500
square feet to 240,000 square feet; a reduction of 214,500 square feet as compared to the
previous project.
Table 1: At Dublin – Revised Project Land Use Summary
Land Use Designations Gross
acres1
Residential
Units Du/Acre Floor Area
Ration (FAR)
Commercial
square feet (sf)
Mixed-Use 23.7 240 -- 0.44 240,0003
Medium Density Residential
(55 and older, Age Restricted)
29.4 196 6.7 NA --
Single Family Residential 23.8 130 5.5 NA --
Revised Project Total 76.9 566 5.5 to 6.7 0.44 240,000
Proposed Project2 76.9 680 7.6 to 14.3 0.4 to 0.7 454,500
Difference 0 (114) -- -- (214,500)
1. Gross residential acreage shall be determined by calculating the area of the site and by adding one-half of the area of abutting streets,
provided that that street width used for calculation shall not be less than 25 feet or more than 50 feet. Public or private streets within the
boundaries of the site, as well as streets abutting the site, shall be calculated within the gross acreage total. Gross acreage includes gross
area of PA 1 and Northside Drive (1.6 acre) to be vacated and included in PA 1 project area.
2. Proposed project as defined in the At Dublin Final EIR, 2018, Table 3-2.
3. The 240,000 square feet of commercial includes 75,000 square feet of hotel (155 rooms) and 40,000 square feet of medical office. The
proposed 40,000 square feet of medical office building was assumed to be retail as a worst-case scenario.
Land Uses
As shown in Figure 1: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations, the applicant proposes to
redistribute and simplify the six existing General Plan land use designations to three, organized
into four Planning Areas (PAs). The proposed new General Plan land use designations, from the
south to the north, are: Mixed-Use; Medium Density Residential and Single‐Family Residential.
These land uses are described below and illustrated conceptually in Figure 2: Conceptual Site
Plan.
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 5
1/16/20
Mixed Use (PA-1)
Mixed-Use is proposed for approximately 23.7 gross acres in the southern portion of the
project site, comprised of PA-1, south of Dublin Boulevard. The Mixed‐Use designation provides
for the combination of multi-family residential housing and commercial uses with an allowable
FAR of 0.30 to 1.0.
The total amount of commercial uses in PA‐1 is 240,000 square feet and would include a
theater, specialty restaurants, miscellaneous general retail uses, a hotel with up to 155 keys,
and a 40,000-square-foot medical office building.
PA-1 would include approximately 1.05 acres of associated plaza areas. Each plaza would have
its own character, incorporating unique elements in the furniture, planting and lighting. A
central plaza would be designed to accommodate community programs, such as farmers
markets, featured musicians, and holiday events. All plazas would be publicly accessible and
privately owned and maintained by a commercial association.
PA-1 would include a five and a half‐story 215,000-square-foot apartment building with up to
240 units surrounding a five‐story parking garage. The apartments would have approximately
4,000 square feet of ground floor retail and would also include several amenities for the
tenants such as a club room, gym, outdoor courtyards, barbeque areas and pool and spa. The
apartments would accommodate private courtyards/amenities that would serve the apartment
tenants.
The apartments would include both passive and active open spaces. The total common useable
outdoor space would be approximately 0.47 acres, which would account for 20 percent of the
net PA-1 site area. These areas would be owned and maintained by the apartment owner.
Medium Density Residential (PA-2)
Medium density residential is proposed on approximately 29.4 acres in PA‐2, between Dublin
Boulevard and Central Parkway. The density would range from 6.1 to 14.0 units per gross acre.
The revised project consists of196 new age‐qualified homes, comprised of 109 single-family and
87 duet‐style dwellings at a density of 6.7 units per gross acre.
Within PA‐2, the revised project would include an approximately 1.7 acres privately‐owned
open space and buffers. This would include an approximately 1.07-acre private park/open
space in the center that would include a clubhouse and various indoor and outdoor recreational
amenities. These open space areas would be owned and maintained by the homeowners’
association.
It is anticipated that pedestrian and vehicular access to PA-2 would be via a controlled gate.
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 6
1/16/20
Single-Family Residential (PA-3 and PA-4)
Single‐family residential is proposed on approximately 23.8 gross acres on the northerly portion
of the project site within PA‐3 and PA‐4, between Central Parkway to the north side of Gleason
Drive. The land use designation allows for a density would range from 0.9 to 6.0 units per gross
acre. The revised project includes a total of 130 single‐family detached units at density of 5.5
units for gross acre. These units would not be age-qualified.
PA‐3 and PA‐4 would include an approximately 1.81 acres of parks and open space buffers.
Walls would be interior to the open space buffers to enhance the open space features and
connectivity to the community. These open space areas would be owned and maintained by
their respective homeowners’ association.
Park Standards
Based on City standards, the revised project would be required to provide 3.54 acres of public
Community Parks and 1.82 acres of public Neighborhood Parks, for a total of 5.36 acres. While
not credited to the revised project’s public open space requirement, approximately 7.69 acres
of privately‐owned open spaces would be included as part of the revised project as either
parks, plazas, courtyards or buffers.
These open space areas, together with the public open space areas would connect the project
site to surrounding neighborhoods and Emerald Glen Park to the west.
Circulation and Access
The revised project would contain several ingress/egress access points from public roadways.
Private streets would be incorporated to allow for access to the interior residential, commercial
and mixed‐use developments. Due to the lower traffic volumes and limited vehicular access,
private streets may be designed with a narrower profile and where the blocks are short and
would have low traffic volumes, may not include featu res typically associated with public
streets including sidewalks and on‐street parking. All internal streets and roadways would be
privately owned and maintained by the respective owner association.
The revised project proposes the following changes to the adjacent off-site roadways:
▪ Tassajara Road – add an exclusive northbound right turn lane into the project driveway
to PA-1 located between Dublin Boulevard and WB I-580 ramps.
▪ Intersection of Dublin Boulevard and new traffic signal between Tassajara Road and
Brannigan Street:
o Would be a three-legged intersection by removing the north leg into PA-2.
o Would subsequently remove the eastbound left turn lane at this intersection .
o No crosswalk on the west leg of this intersection is proposed.
o Would add an exclusive eastbound right turn lane into PA-1.
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 7
1/16/20
▪ Intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Brannigan Street :
o Only one eastbound left turn lane needed.
o Southbound approach can be a left turn lane and a shared through -right turn
lane, as opposed to a southbound left turn lane, through lane, and right turn
lane.
To accommodate the modified land uses, the revised project would modify ingress and egress
to the four planning areas as follows:
▪ PA-1
o Two driveways along Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard, whereas the
previous project proposed three driveways.
▪ PA-2
o Access on Dublin Boulevard would be removed.
o The previously proposed unsignalized driveway along Tassajara Road between
The Shops and Dublin Boulevard would be removed .
o The two previously proposed driveways on Central Parkway would be removed.
▪ PA-3
o The one access on Central Parkway would remain but be relocated towards the
center of PA-3. This would provide additional space away from Brannigan Street .
▪ PA-4
o Access remains the same.
Bicycles and Pedestrians
The public roadways surrounding the project site would be as described in the previous project
and completed in accordance with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, including the
incorporation of Class II bike lanes along Dublin Boulevard and westbound on Central Parkway.
Public Transit
The revised project retains the same public transit improvements as described in the previou s
project.
Bus stops suitable for use by Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LA VTA) would be
constructed on the revised project frontage streets of Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive, Central
Parkway and Dublin Boulevard.
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 8
1/16/20
Grading
The revised project would be substantially consistent with the assumptions and grading
approach of the previous project.
The revised project would require an estimated net import of approximately 111,200 cubic
yards of soil. Excess fill would be utilized on‐site to minimize the import of soils. PA‐1 would
have the majority of imported soils, PA‐2 and PA-4 would generate some soils export, and PA‐3
would require some minor import of soils. The imported soils would originate from available
borrow sites, preferably within the Tri‐Valley area.
Infrastructure
Water
The revised project would connect to the existing underground potable and non‐potable
recycled Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) water lines in a manner similar to the
previous project.
The project site is located within the boundaries of the DSRSD, which serves the City of Dublin
with potable water and non‐potable recycled water. The revised project would connect to
existing underground potable and non‐potable recycled DSRSD water lines located within the
right‐of‐way of the adjacent roadways. Multiple connections would be provided for the
purposes of achieving a “looped system.” Potable water would be used for domestic use, while
non‐potable recycled/reclaimed water would be used primarily for landscape irrigation.
Wastewater
The revised project would connect to the existing underground sewer lines in a manner similar
to the previous project.
The project site is located within the boundaries of DSRSD, which serves the City of Dublin with
potable water. The previous project assumed connection to existing underground DSRSD sewer
lines located within the right‐of‐way of the adjacent roadways. Multiple laterals would connect
the revised project to the existing sewer system.
Stormwater Management
Stormwater management for the project site would be substantially similar to the previous
project.
The previous project assumed an on‐site storm drainage system that would collect and convey
runoff and ultimately discharge it to the City of Dublin’s municipal storm drainage system.
Drainage for the revised project was designed to maintain the existing drainage patterns to the
extent feasible. This would be done by reducing the post development runoff to the
predevelopment condition, consistent with Municipal Regional Permit requirements as defined
by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 9
1/16/20
Dry Utilities
The revised project assumes these same services and improvements as compared to the
previous project.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company would serve the project site with electricity and natural gas.
Additionally, portions of buildings in the revised project would include the use of solar
power/photovoltaics. Similar to the previous project, the revised project would incorporate
electric vehicle (EV) charging stations for the commercial area and the apartments.
Project Phasing
Project construction activities would include site preparation, grading, paving, building
construction, and architectural coating. As shown Figure 3: Project Phasing, the revised project
is anticipated to be completed in two phases over a construction period of approximately four
years, although it may be developed over a longer period of time depending on market
conditions. The first phase would include the northern portion of PA‐1 and all of PA-2. Phase 2
includes the southern portion of PA‐1, and PA3 and PA‐4.
Project Approvals
Discretionary approvals and permits and authorizations required by the City of Dublin for
implementation of the revised project includes the following:
▪ EIR Certification
▪ General Plan Amendment
▪ Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
▪ Planned Development Rezone (Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans)
▪ Site Development Review
▪ Vesting Tentative Map
▪ Street Vacation (Northside Drive)
▪ Development Agreement
▪ Master Sign Program/Site Development Review
Subsequent ministerial actions would be required for the implementation of the revised project
including issuance of building permits, grading, encroachment and site improvements.
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 10
1/16/20
Environmental Analysis
The discussion below analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the revised project per
the criteria as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Based on this analysis, the City
has determined that no event has occurred that requires recirculation of the Final EIR.
Aesthetics
The Final EIR concluded that impacts to a scenic vista, state scenic highway, and visual character
would be less than significant. Impacts from new light and glare were determined to be
potentially significant because implementation of the previous project would include additional
sources of commercial and residential indoor lighting, outdoor/security lighting, parking area
lighting, and illuminated signage to a presently vacant site. These impacts were reduced to a
less-than-significant level by implementation of MM AES-4.1: Exterior Lighting Control.
The revised project would contain similar land uses to the previous project. The revised would
project shift the buildings with the largest mass (movie theater and apartment building) from
PA-2 to PA-1 where similarly large-scale buildings were anticipated in the previous project. The
urban form would generally be the same but at a lower density. As shown in Figure 4: Project
Renderings, impacts to visual character would be consistent with existing uses and
development patterns in the project area.
Similarly, while a reduced density, the revised project would still require exterior lighting that
would generally be similar to the previous project. Mitigation measures in the Final EIR would
continue to apply.
With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there
would be no new or substantially more severe aesthetic significant impacts for the revised
project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no
other CEQA standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is
required.
Air Quality
The Final EIR found that development of the project site would potentially conflict with the
2017 Clean Air Plan. Construction and operational air quality emissions generated by the
previous project were determined to exceed Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) emissions thresholds despite implementation of mitigation measures. To reduce
impacts to air quality emissions to less than significant, the previous project identified the
following mitigation measures: MM AQ-2.1: BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures,
MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction Equipment, MM AQ-2.3: Architectural
Coating, and MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces. The Final EIR found no impacts to
objectionable odors because BAAQMD enforces permit and nuisance rules to control odorous
emissions from stationary sources.
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 11
1/16/20
The revised project is anticipated to be completed in two phases over a construction period of
approximately four years. The previous project had anticipated construction to be completed in
two phases over five years.
Similar to the previous project, the resulting total cut and fill of soils for the revised project is
estimated to be approximately 111,200 cubic yards. Although the revised project proposes a
reduction in residential units and commercial square footage, similar construction equipment
and number of trips would still be required for the construction. Daily construction emissions
would still remain below their respective thresholds except for ROG and NOX due to fact that
construction activities in multiple Planning Areas would occur, similar to previously proposed .
Mitigation measures in the Final EIR would continue to apply including MM AQ-2.1: BAAQMD
Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction
Equipment, MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating, and MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces.
With adherence to these mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there
would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to air quality for the revised
project beyond what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no other CEQA
standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required.
Biological Resources
The Final EIR determined that development of the project site would have the potential to
impact special-status plant species, special-status wildlife species, nesting birds and wetlands.
These impacts were reduced to a less-than-significant level by implementation of MM BIO-1.1:
Special-Status Plants Avoidance and Mitigation, MM BIO-1.2: Burrowing Owl Avoidance and
Exclusion Measures, MM BIO-1.3: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures, and MM BIO- 3.1 Wetland
Mitigation Plan.
The Final EIR determined that impacts to natural communities or riparian habitats, wildlife
movement, and tree preservation to be less than significant.
Because the revised project would disturb the entire project site, similar to the previous
project, there would not be any greater impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status
species than previously analyzed in the Final EIR. Mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR
would continue to apply.
With adherence to these required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements,
there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to candidate, sensitive,
or special status species for the revised project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the
Final EIR for the previous project and no other CEQA standards for recirculation are met.
Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required.
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 12
1/16/20
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
The Final EIR determined that development of the project site would have no impact to known
historical or archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources.
The Final EIR determined that development of the project site would have the potential to
impact previously unknown historic and paleontological resources. These impacts were reduced
to a less-than-significant level by implementation of MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological
Discovery During Construction, and MM CR-2.1: Paleontological Resource Monitoring. Impacts
to the inadvertent discovery of human remains were found to be less than significant with the
implementation of existing regulations.
Because the revised project would be located within the same project site as the previous
project, there would be no greater impacts to cultural resources than previously analyzed.
Mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR would continue to apply.
With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there
would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to cultural resources for the
revised project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous
project and no other CEQA standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of
the EIR is required.
Geology and Soils
The Final EIR determined that the project site would have no impact in regards to earthquake-
related ground rupture, landslide susceptibility, on -site wastewater disposal system, and
extraction of mineral resources.
The Final EIR determined that development of the project site would have the potential to be
exposed to strong ground shaking hazards, ground failure, including liquefaction. These impacts
were reduced to a less-than-significant level by implementation of MM GEO-1.1: Implement
Preliminary Geotechnical Report Recommendations and compliance with the most current
California Building Code (CBC ) and General Plan policies.
The revised project would still be required to implement the geotechnical recommendations
and be compliant with the most current CBC requirements as described in the Final EIR.
With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there
would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to seismic hazards for the
revised project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous
project and no other CEQA standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of
the EIR is required.
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 13
1/16/20
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Final EIR determined that the previous project would include direct and indirect GHG
emissions. Direct operational-related GHG emissions include emissions from area and mobile
sources, while indirect emissions are from energy consumption, water demand, and solid
waste. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.
As determined in the Final EIR, the previous project was determined to be consistent with the
overall goals of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Plan Bay Area 2040 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy in concentrating new development in
locations where there is existing infrastructure. The previous project’s design features were
determined to be consistent with the GHG reduction planning efforts and housin g performance
targets outlined in Plan Bay Area 2040 and the City’s Climate Action Plan. The revised project
would be substantially consistent with these design features.
The revised project would be completed in two phases over a construction period of
approximately four years, one year less than previously proposed. The previous project would
utilize an average of 125 workers a year and would generate approximately 458 daily trips,
based on 3.05 daily trips per worker, with a 20 percent increase to account for material
deliveries, and other trips not directly related to site workers. The revised project would be
substantially consistent with these assumptions.
The revised project would result in less indirect emissions than previously analyzed because
there would be a reduced demand from energy consumption, water demand, and solid waste
due to the reduction in the number of housing units and less commercial square footage . The
revised project would result in less direct operational-related GHG emissions than previously
analyzed because there would be less residential units, thus resulting in less net project trips.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts to GHG emissions for the revised project beyond what was
analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no other CEQA standards for
recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Final EIR determined that the previous project would have no impact in regard to emitting
hazardous emissions within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, conflict with an
emergency response plan, or be located on a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
It also determined that the previous project would have the potential to result in the exposure
of hazardous materials into the environment due to ground disturbance. These impacts were
reduced to a less-than-significant level by implementation of MM HAZ-1.1 Disposal of
Deleterious Materials. This mitigation measure would continue to apply.
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 14
1/16/20
In regard to the previous project activities involving the use, transport, and disposal of
hazardous materials, impacts were found to be less than significant due to compliance with
regulatory requirements.
The revised project would involve the same types of land uses. Future commercial uses would
use, handle and store hazardous materials and waste that would be regulated by the Alameda
County Department of Environmental Health and provide applicable documentation
demonstrating operational compliance.
For the residential portion of the revised project, there would still be a less than significant
impact to the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials since residential development
does not use, store or transport significant quantities of hazardous materials.
With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there
would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts for the revised project
beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no other
CEQA standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The Final EIR determined that the previous project would not be subject to inundation by
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow based on the location of the project site. The revised project is
located on the same project site and, therefore, would also not be subject to inundation by
seiche, tsunami or mudflow.
The Final EIR identified development by the previous project would not result in an increase in
stormwater runoff due to an increase in impervious surfaces and therefore impacts were
determined to be less than significant. Impacts to water quality were determined to be less
than significant because the previous project would be required to meet the water quality
requirements required by the Construction General Permit and MRP Provision C.3
Requirements. Impacts to placement of structures within a 100-year flood hazard area were
determined to be less than significant because structures within PA-1 would be elevated above
the 100-year flood elevation level. In addition, as part of the design process, the revised project
applicant would seek a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from FEMA. The raised
elevations within PA-1 and the associated CLOMR and LOMR process would reduce impacts to a
less-than-significant level. The revised project would be subject to these same requirements.
The previous project assumed on‐site storm drainage system would be installed to collect and
convey runoff and ultimately discharge to the City of Dublin’s municipal storm drainage system.
Similar to the previous project, drainage on the project site has been designed in the revised
project to maintain the existing watershed drainage pattern to the extent feasible. This would
be done by reducing the post development runoff for PA-1 and PA-4 to the predevelopment
condition prior to discharge into the City of Dublin’s municipal storm drainage system,
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 15
1/16/20
consistent with Municipal Regional Permit requirements as defined by the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board and in a manner similar to that proposed by the previous
project. Runoff from PA-2 and PA-3 would be conveyed by the municipal storm drainage system
to the existing downstream water quality/detention pond constructed as part of the Dublin
Ranch Drainage Master Plan improvements, also in a manner similar to that proposed by the
previous project.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts to hydrology and water quality for the revised project beyond
what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no other CEQA
standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required.
Land Use and Planning
The Final EIR concluded that development of the previous project would not physically divide
an established community, nor would it conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or
Natural Community Conservation Plan.
The previous project included a General Plan Amendment that would re-designate the project
site from six to four land use designations. The Final EIR determined that the previous project
would not conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation.
As shown in Figure 1: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations, the revised project would
redistribute and simplify the six existing General Plan land use desig nations to three land uses,
organized into four PAs. The revised project would reduce the number of residential units by
114 units and proposes lower density product types. The revised project would locate
commercial uses south of Dublin Boulevard to consolidate vehicle trips and pedestrian
circulation. Commercial uses would be reduced by 214,500 square feet compared to the
previous project. See Table 1: At Dublin – Revised Project Land Use Summary. Given the revised
project would reduce the number of residential uses and lower the intensity of uses, impacts to
land uses would be less than previously analyzed.
With City Council approval of the revised project and certification of the EIR, the revised project
would be consistent with applicable land use plan, policy, and regulations. There would be no
new or substantially more severe significant impacts to environmental protection policies in the
General Plan for the revised project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for
the previous project and no other CEQA standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no
recirculation of the EIR is required.
Noise
The Final EIR found worst-case construction noise levels at the closest off-site sensitive
receptors for the previous project could potentially reach 72.8 dBA Leq. Worst-case
construction noise levels at the closest occupied on-site receptors could potentially reach 79.7
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 16
1/16/20
dBA. These impacts were reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of MM
N-1.1: Construction Noise Reduction.
The Final EIR determined development from the previous project would create new sources of
noise in the project vicinity. The increase of noise level from traffic noise, mechanical
equipment, and parking areas were found not to be significant. The increase in noise from slow
moving trucks and on-site mobile sources were found to be potentially significant. These
impacts were reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of MM N-3.1: Noise
Attenuation.
Impacts to groundborne vibration during construction and operation activities from the
previous project were found to be below the significance threshold of 0.20 inch/second peak
particle velocity. Implementation of the construction noise best management practices would
ensure that construction noise would not result in annoyance or disturbance or injury or
endangerment of the health, repose, peace or safety of any rea sonable person of normal
sensitivity residing in the revised project vicinity.
The revised project is anticipated to be completed in two phases over a construction period of
approximately four years. Although the revised project proposes a reduction in residential units
and a reduction in commercial square footage, similar construction equipment and number of
construction trips would be required. Thus, impacts in regard to noise and groundborne
vibration from construction and operation activities would be similar. Mitigation measures
described in the Final EIR would continue to apply.
With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there
would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to noise for the revised
project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no
other CEQA standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is
required.
Population and Housing
The Final EIR determined development of the project site would not displace existing housing
or people because the project site is undeveloped.
The Final EIR identified population growth from the previous project would be less than
significant. While the previous project would increase the population projections for the City,
the previous project still represents a small fraction of the planned buildout for t he Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan overall. In addition, the previous project would be consistent with the
nature of surrounding development and would be within the estimate of population growth
estimated by Department of Finance and the City’s Housing Element.
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 17
1/16/20
Because the revised project is located within the same project site and proposes a reduction of
residential units, impacts to population growth would be less than previously analyzed in the
Final EIR.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts to population growth and housing for the revised project
beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no other
CEQA standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required.
Public Services
The Final EIR determined that impacts to fire protection and emergency medical services, police
services, schools, and recreation facilities to be less than significant.
The revised project would utilize the same services and improvements as the previous project.
Given the revised project proposes a reduction of residential units and a reduction in
commercial square footage, there would be less demand on these public facilities and services
than previously analyzed in the Final EIR.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts to public services for the revised project beyond what was
analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no other CEQA standards for
recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required.
Transportation/Traffic
The Final EIR determined that the previous project would have significant impacts in regard to
transportation and circulation. Some of these impacts were reduced to a less than significant
level by implementation of the following mitigation measures:
▪ MM TR-1.1 Prohibited Turn Movement Design Features for the New Project Intersection
on Dublin Boulevard
▪ MM TR-3.1 Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway
▪ MM TR-3.2 Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway
▪ MM TR-3.3 Existing + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard
▪ MM TR-3.5 Existing + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / The Shops / Project
Driveway
▪ MM TR-6.2 Near-term + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street
▪ MM TR-6.3 Near-term + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / The Shops /
Project Driveway
▪ MM TR-8.1 Cumulative + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard
▪ MM TR-8.2 Cumulative + Project Improvements to Brannigan Street / Dublin Boulevard
▪ MM TR-8.3 Cumulative + Project Improvements to Fallon Road / Dublin Boulevard
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 18
1/16/20
▪ MM TR-8.4 Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Keegan Street
▪ MM TR-8.5 Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Lockhart Street
▪ MM TR-9.1 Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Grafton Street
However, even with the implementation of the following mitigation measures, some impacts
would remain significant and unavoidable as follows:
▪ Impact TR-2: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Existing + Project
condition that exceed established LOS standards (Class I).
o MM TR-2.1 Existing + Project Improvements to El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive /
Jack London Boulevard (LTS)
o MM TR-2.2 Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
▪ Impact TR-3: Cause intersection queues to operate below acceptable levels under
Existing + Project conditions (Class I).
o MM TR-3.4 Existing + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps
▪ Impact TR-4: Increase vehicle densities along study freeway segments and ramps in the
Existing + Project condition that exceed established LOS standards (Class I).
o MM TR-4.1 Existing + Project Freeway Segment Improvements
o MM TR-4.2 Existing + Project Ramp Metering Improvements
▪ Impact TR-5: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Near-Term + Project
condition that exceed established LOS standards (Class I and II).
o MM TR-5.1 Near-Term + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las Positas
Boulevard
▪ Impact TR-6: Cause intersection queues to operate below acceptable levels under Near-
Term + Project conditions (Class I and II).
o MM TR-6.1 Near-Term + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard
▪ Impact TR-7: Increase vehicle densities along study freeway segments and ramps in the
Near-Term + Project conditions that exceed established LOS standards (Class I Impact).
o MM TR-7.1 Near-Term + Project Ramp Metering Improvements
▪ Impact TR-8: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Cumulative + Project
conditions that exceed established LOS standards (Class I and II).
o MM TR-8.6 Cumulative + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las Positas
Boulevard
Trip Generation
For trip generation purposes, the revised project was assumed to include the land uses and
sizes as shown in Table 2: New Project Weekday Trip Generation. The 240,000 square feet of
commercial uses from Table 1: At Dublin – Revised Project Land Use Summary is divided into
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 19
1/16/20
75,000 square feet of hotel and 165,000 square feet of retail/mixed-use since each land use has
its own trip generation rate. The 40,000-square -foot medical office building could still be used
as a retail use and, therefore, is included within the remaining 165,000 square feet of
retail/mixed-use since it has a higher trip generation rate than a medical office building. This
would result in a higher number of vehicle trips and a more conservative analysis.
The revised project would result in less vehicle trips as compared to the previous project. As
shown in Table 2: New Project Weekday Trip Generation, the revised project would generate
12,109 net new daily trips, with 565 net new trips (252 in and 313 out) occurring during the AM
peak hour and 1,039 net new trips (547 in and 492 out) occurring during the PM peak hour. As
shown in Table 3: New Project Saturday Trip Generation, the revised project would generate
15,638 net new Saturday daily trips, with 1,263 net new trips (671 in and 592 out) occurring
during the peak hour.
Table 4: Weekday Trip Generation Comparison 2018 vs 2019 shows a trip generation
comparison between the previous project and the revised project; including the difference in
project trips for the uses north and south of Dublin Boulevard.
The revised project is estimated to generate 183 fewer AM peak hour trips, 506 fewer PM peak
hour trips, and 568 fewer Saturday peak hour trips. However, the revised project is estimated
to generate 90 more AM and 59 more Saturday peak hour trips for PA-1, south of Dublin
Boulevard. This is due to the added residential units, which have a higher trip generation than
retail uses, which have been reduced for PA-1, as compared to the previous project.
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 20
1/16/20
Table 2: New Project Weekday Trip Generation
Land Use
ITE
Land
Use
Code Size Unit
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Trips In Out Total In Out Total
Revised Project
Residential Single-Family
Detached 1 210 130 DU 1,364 26 76 102 83 49 132
Residential Apartments 2 220 240 DU 1,774 25 85 110 81 48 129
Senior Housing Detached 3 251 109 DU 606 15 29 44 31 20 51
Senior Housing Attached 4 252 87 DU 324 6 11 17 13 10 23
Hotel 5 310 155 Rooms 1,322 42 30 72 46 44 90
Mixed-Use 6 820 165 1,000 sf. 8,452 145 89 234 378 409 787
Internal Capture
Trip Reduction (Day: 3.7%,
AM: 2.4%, PM: 5%) 7 -512 -7 -7 -14 -30 -30 -60
Pass-By
Retail Only Trip Reduction
(PM: 15% after IC) -1,221 -55 -58 -113
Net New Project Trips 12,109 252 313 565 547 492 1,039
Notes:
1. ITE Code 210; Based on ITE equation. AM: Y=0.71*X+4.8; PM: LN(Y)=0.96*LN(X)+0.2; DAILY: LN(Y)=0.92*LN(X)+2.71
2. ITE Code 220; Based on ITE equation. AM: LN(Y)=0.95*LN(X)-0.51; PM: LN(Y)=0.89*LN(X)-0.2; DAILY: Y=7.56*X-40.86
3. ITE Code 251; Based on ITE equation. AM: LN(Y)=0.76*LN(X)+0.21; PM: LN(Y)=0.78*LN(X)+0.28; DAILY: LN(Y)=0.88*LN(X)+2.28
4. ITE Code 252; Based on ITE equation. AM: Y=0.2*X-0.18; PM: Y=0.24*X+2.26; DAILY: Y=4.02*X-25.37
5. ITE Code 310; Based on ITE equation. AM: Y=0.5*X-5.34; PM: Y=0.75*X-26.02; DAILY: Y=11.29*X-426.97
6. ITE Code 820; Based on ITE equation. AM: Y=0.5*X+151.78; PM: LN(Y)=0.74*LN(X)+2.89; DAILY: LN(Y)=0.68*LN(X)+5.57
7. Weekday daily internal capture is not available from ITE. AM and PM peak internal capture rates averaged to estimate the daily internal
capture rate.
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 10th Edition, 2017; Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2018
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 21
1/16/20
Table 3: New Project Saturday Trip Generation
Land Use ITE Land
Use Code Size Unit Daily Saturday Peak Hour
Trips In Out Total
Proposed Project
Residential Single-Family Detached 1 210 130 DU 1,284 79 67 146
Residential Apartments 2 220 240 DU 2,840 122 104 226
Senior Housing Detached 3 251 109 DU 298 12 13 25
Senior Housing Attached 4 252 87 DU 286 18 11 29
Hotel 5 310 155 Rooms 1,196 62 49 111
Mixed-Use 6 820 165 1,000 sf. 12,158 478 441 919
Internal Capture
Trip Reduction (Day: 5%, SAT: 5%) 7 -668 -30 -30 -60
Pass-By
Retail Only Trip Reduction (15% after IC) -1,756 -70 -63 -133
Net New Project Trips 15,638 671 592 1,263
Notes:
1. ITE Code 210; Based on ITE equation. SAT Peak: Y=0.84*X+17.99; DAILY: LN(Y)=0.94*LN(X)+2.56
2. ITE Code 220; Based on ITE equation. SAT Peak: Y=1.08*X-33.24; DAILY: Y=14.01*X-521.69
3. ITE Code 251; Based on average rate. SAT Peak: Y=0.23*X; DAILY: Y=2.73*X
4. ITE Code 252; Based on ITE equation. SAT Peak: Y=0.35*X-1.67; DAILY: Y=3.97*X-60.09
5. ITE Code 310; Based on ITE equation. SAT Peak: Y=0.69*X+4.32; DAILY: Y=9.62*X-294.56
6. ITE Code 820; Based on ITE equation. SAT Peak: LN(Y)=0.79*LN(X)+2.79; DAILY: LN(Y)=0.62*LN(X)+6.24
7. Saturday daily internal capture is not available from ITE. Saturday peak internal capture rate estimate used for the Saturday daily internal
capture rate.
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 10th Edition, 2017; Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2018
Table 4: Weekday Trip Generation Comparison 2018 vs 2019
Land Use
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour SAT Peak
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
North of Dublin Boulevard
Previous Project (2018) 132 303 435 398 295 693 434 377 811
Revised Project (2019) 47 115 162 116 74 190 98 86 184
Difference -85 -188 -273 -282 -221 -503 -336 -291 -627
South of Dublin Boulevard
Previous Project (2018) 193 120 313 411 441 852 542 478 1,020
Revised Project (2019) 205 198 403 431 418 849 573 506 1,079
Difference +12 +78 +90 +20 -23 -3 +31 +28 +59
Project Total
Previous Project (2018) 325 423 748 809 736 1545 976 855 1,831
Revised Project (2019) 252 313 565 547 492 1039 671 592 1,263
Difference -73 -110 -183 -262 -244 -506 -305 -263 -568
Note: Increases in project trips with the revised project are shown in blue.
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 22
1/16/20
Level of Service and Queuing Analysis
The overall trip generation for the revised project is estimated to be less than the previous
project trip generation. Therefore, the revised project would generate fewer project trips in the
study area than previously analyzed in the Final EIR. However, there is a shift in the land uses
within the Planning Areas. As shown in Table 4: Weekday Trip Generation Comparison 2018 vs
2019, south of Dublin Boulevard is estimated to have an increase in vehicle trips in the weekday
AM peak hour and the Saturday peak hour. Therefore, additional traffic analysis was conducted
at the study intersections adjacent to the project site (e.g., Brannigan Street, Dublin Boulevard,
and Tassajara Road) that may have a significant impact due to the shift in land uses between
the Project Planning Areas. The Existing Plus Project, Near-term (2025) Plus Project, and Long-
term (2040) Plus Project scenarios were reevaluated at study intersections adjacent to the
project site along Brannigan Street, Dublin Boulevard, and Tassajara Road.
Existing Plus Project
The intersection level of service (LOS) and queuing were compared between the previous
Existing Plus Project scenario and the revised Existing Plus Project scenario. As shown in Table
5: Existing Plus Project Weekday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 and Table 6: Existing Plus
Project Saturday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019, each study intersection operates acceptably in
the Existing plus Project scenario and the majority of the intersections have a lo wer delay as
compared to the previous project.
Table 5: Existing Plus Project Weekday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019
Table 6: Existing Plus Project Saturday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019
Traffic queuing and turning movements at each study intersection were also analyzed for the
Existing Plus Project scenario. Queue lengths for the revised project would be less than
LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Δ LOS Delay Δ
12 Tassajara Rd / Central Pkwy D C 22.5 B 17.4 C 22.3 -0.2 B 17.7 0.3
13 Tassajara Rd / The Shops D B 13.1 B 17.4 B 10.1 -3.0 B 15.9 -1.5
14 Tassajara Rd / Dublin Blvd D D 39.0 D 47.0 D 38.5 -0.5 D 43.5 -3.5
15 Tassajara Rd / Dublin Corporate Way D A 7.0 C 21.9 A 7.0 0.0 C 22.2 0.3
21 Central Expy / Brannigan St D C 28.4 B 18.0 C 27.8 -0.6 B 17.4 -0.6
22 Finnian Way / Brannigan St D A 8.2 A 9.3 A 8.1 -0.1 A 8.8 -0.5
23 Dublin Blvd / Brannigan St D B 16.5 B 16.7 B 16.1 -0.4 B 19.6 2.9
35 Project Dwy #9 / Dublin Blvd D B 13.5 C 30.2 B 10.9 -2.6 B 16.2 -14.0
IntersectionInt #AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
2019 Errata
Existing + Project
Criteria AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
2018 Draft EIR
LOS Delay LOS Delay Δ
13 Tassajara Rd / The Shops D C 21.3 B 18.1 -3.2
14 Tassajara Rd / Dublin Blvd D D 44.0 D 41.5 -2.5
35 Project Dwy #9 / Dublin Blvd D D 40.6 B 17.9 -22.7
Int #Intersection Criteria
Existing + Project
2018 Draft EIR 2019 Errata
SAT Peak Hour SAT Peak Hour
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 23
1/16/20
previously analyzed, except for the northbound left turn movement at the intersection of
Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard in the AM and PM pea k hours. However, the queue for
this movement is contained within the available storage pocket and , therefore, impacts would
remain less than significant.
For the Existing Plus Project scenario, the revised project would not result in any new LOS or
queuing impacts.
Near-term (2025) Plus Project
The intersection LOS and queuing were compared for the previous Near-term (2025) Plus
Project scenario and the revised Near-term (2025) Plus Project scenario. As shown in Table 7:
Near-term (2025) Plus Project Weekday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 and Table 8: Near-term
(2025) Plus Project Saturday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019, each study intersection operates at
a lower delay or stays below the LOS D threshold in the Near-term (2025) Plus Project scenario.
The majority of the intersections have a lower delay for the revised project as compared to the
previous project. The intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard operates at a
deficient LOS F in the PM peak hour, but the intersection op erates better for the revised project
due to the lower trip generation of the revised project. During the Saturday peak hour, the
intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard and the signalized intersection on Dublin
Boulevard between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street have a lower delay for the revised
project as compared to the previous project. Since there are no intersections that would
operate unacceptably or increase delay, there would be no new significant impacts.
Table 7: Near-term (2025) Plus Project Weekday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019
Note: Locations shown in bold reflect a deficient level of service.
LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Δ LOS Delay Δ
12 Tassajara Rd / Central Pkwy D C 23.5 B 18.5 C 23.5 0.0 B 18.9 0.4
13 Tassajara Rd / The Shops D B 12.7 B 19.3 B 10.1 -2.6 B 17.3 -2.0
14 Tassajara Rd / Dublin Blvd D D 52.0 F 97.4 D 52.4 0.4 F 93.9 -3.5
15 Tassajara Rd / Dublin Corporate Way D A 6.2 C 23.3 A 6.2 0.0 C 23.7 0.4
21 Central Expy / Brannigan St D C 29.6 B 19.1 C 28.8 -0.8 B 18.5 -0.6
22 Finnian Way / Brannigan St D A 8.4 B 19.1 A 8.2 -0.2 A 8.8 -10.3
23 Dublin Blvd / Brannigan St D B 12.6 B 19.1 B 15.5 2.9 C 24.0 4.9
35 Project Dwy #9 / Dublin Blvd D C 25.6 C 26.4 B 10.7 -14.9 B 16.5 -9.9
Int #Intersection Criteria
Near-term (2025) + Project
2018 Draft EIR 2019 Errata
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 24
1/16/20
Table 8: Near-term (2025) Plus Project Saturday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019
Note: Locations shown in bold reflect a deficient level of service.
The queuing was also reviewed for the Near-term (2025) Plus Project scenario. For each turning
movement at each of the study intersections reviewed, the Near-term (2025) plus Project
queue lengths were less than previously analyzed, except for the northbound left turn
movement at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard in the AM and PM peak
hours.
This increase in queue length is due to a reassignment of project traffic due to the change in
land uses and concentration of high-density land uses in PA-1. This results in an increase in the
number of outbound AM peak hour trips for PA-1, resulting in more trips at some intersections
than analyzed in the previous project. For example, because there is a higher concentration of
commercial uses on the west end of PA-1, this increases the likelihood of vehicles using the
Tassajara Road access, as opposed to the Dublin Boulevard or Brannigan Street access points.
For this scenario, the northbound queue would extend past the turn pocket, as was identified in
Impact TR-6. The revised project would lengthen this queue by 11 feet in the AM peak hour and
two feet in the PM peak hour. However, since this was previously identified as a significant and
unavoidable impact, the revised project would not result in a new significant impact.
For the Near-term (2025) Plus Project scenario, the revised project would not result in any new
LOS or queuing significant impacts.
Long-term (2040) Plus Project
The intersection LOS and queuing were compared between the previous Long-term (2040) Plus
Project scenario and the revised Long-term (2040) plus Project scenario. As shown in Table 9:
Long-term (2040) Plus Project Weekday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019 and Table 10: Long-term
(2040) Plus Project Saturday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019, each study intersection operates at
a lower delay or stays below the LOS D threshold in the Long-term (2040) Plus Project scenario.
The majority of the intersections have a lower delay as compared to the previous project. Since
there are no intersections that would operate unacceptably or increase delay, there would be
no new significant impacts.
LOS Delay LOS Delay Δ
13 Tassajara Rd / The Shops D C 29.5 C 28.5 -1.0
14 Tassajara Rd / Dublin Blvd D F 119.4 F 102.7 -16.7
35 Project Dwy #9 / Dublin Blvd D E 59.2 B 17.6 -41.6
Int #Intersection Criteria
Near-term (2025) + Project
2018 Draft EIR 2019 Errata
SAT Peak Hour SAT Peak Hour
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 25
1/16/20
Table 9: Long-term (2040) Plus Project Weekday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019
Note: Locations shown in bold reflect a deficient level of service.
Table 10: Long-term (2040) Plus Project Saturday LOS Comparison 2018 vs 2019
Note: Locations shown in bold reflect a deficient level of service.
The intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard operates at a deficient LOS F in the AM
and PM peak hours, but the intersection operates better with the revised project than with the
previous project due to the lower trip generation.
The intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Brannigan Street operates at a deficient LOS F in the
PM peak hour, but the intersection operates better with the revised project t han with the
previous project due to the lower cycle length needed at this intersection.
During the Saturday peak hour, the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard and
the signalized intersection on Dublin Boulevard between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street
would have a lower delay with the revised project as compared to the previous project.
The queuing was also reviewed for the Long-term (2040) Plus Project scenario. For each turning
movement at each of the study intersections reviewed, the Long-term (2040) plus Project
queue lengths with the revised project would be less than previously analyzed, except for the
northbound left turn movement at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard in
the AM and PM peak hours. For this scenario, the northbound queue did extend past the turn
pocket, and was identified in Impact TR-9. The revised project would lengthen this queue by 12
feet in the AM peak hour and six feet in the PM peak hour. However, since this was previously
identified as a significant and unavoidable impact, the revised project would not result in a new
significant impact.
LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Δ LOS Delay Δ
12 Tassajara Rd / Central Pkwy D C 22.6 C 21.7 C 22.9 0.3 C 23.0 1.3
13 Tassajara Rd / The Shops D B 12.2 B 19.6 B 10.5 -1.7 B 16.8 -2.8
14 Tassajara Rd / Dublin Blvd D F 88.8 F 183.6 F 88.0 -0.8 F 175.6 -8.0
15 Tassajara Rd / Dublin Corporate Way D A 6.2 B 18.3 A 6.2 0.0 B 18.5 0.2
21 Central Expy / Brannigan St D C 27.8 C 23.3 C 27.0 -0.8 C 22.1 -1.2
22 Finnian Way / Brannigan St D A 8.4 B 10.3 A 8.3 -0.1 A 9.6 -0.7
23 Dublin Blvd / Brannigan St D B 16.8 F 104.9 C 22.2 5.4 F 90.0 -14.9
35 Project Dwy #9 / Dublin Blvd D A 9.5 D 46.8 B 11.9 2.4 C 21.1 -25.7
Int #Intersection Criteria
Long-term (2040) + Project
2018 Draft EIR 2019 Errata
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
LOS Delay LOS Delay Δ
13 Tassajara Rd / The Shops D C 24.6 C 20.8 -3.8
14 Tassajara Rd / Dublin Blvd D F 156.1 F 148.7 -7.4
35 Project Dwy #9 / Dublin Blvd D E 78.6 C 20.2 -58.4
Int #Intersection Criteria
Long-term (2040) + Project
2018 Draft EIR 2019 Errata
SAT Peak Hour SAT Peak Hour
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 26
1/16/20
For the Long-term (2040) plus Project Plus Project scenario, the revised project would not result
in any new LOS or queuing impacts.
Transportation Conclusions
The revised project would not result in worsening below the LOS D criteria and queuing
conditions compared to the previous project, except for the northbound left turn queue at the
intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard in the Near-term (2025) Plus Project
scenarios and the Long-term (2040) Plus Project scenarios. However, the revised project
increases the queue length by a maximum of 12 feet (less than one vehicle length) as compared
to the previous project. This queuing impact was previously identified as a significant and
unavoidable impact in the EIR and, therefore, is not a new or substantially more severe
significant impact.
The revised project would still be required to implement the transportation mitigation
measures identified in the EIR. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable
regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts to transportation for the revised project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in
the Final EIR for the previous project and no other CEQA standards for recirculation are met .
Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required.
Utilities and Service Systems
The Final EIR determined that impacts to water supplies or treatment facilities, wastewater
treatment facilities, stormwater drainage facilities, and landfills, would be less than significant.
Similar to the previous project, the revised project would also connect to the existing
underground potable and non-potable recycled DSRSD water lines and sewer lines located
within the right-of-way of the adjacent roadways. The Water Supply Assessment (WSA)
prepared by DSRSD concluded in a potable water (interior) demand of 0.20 MGD. Applying the
same methodology, the revised project is estimated to have an interior potable water demand
of 126,825 gallons per day (gpd), which would be a reduction of 73,175 gpd compared to the
previous project.
Per Technical Memorandum – Supplemental Water Supply Assessment and Water and Sewer
System Capacity Analysis for the Updated Proposed AT Dublin Development Project prepared by
West Yost Associates (January 2020), review of the revised project showed a slight decrease in
service demands due to a reduction in residential units and less intense commercial uses. The
design and planning criteria set by DSRSD’s 2016 Water System Master Plan and 2019
Collection System Master Plan set the capacity of the potable and recycled water, and
wastewater collection system. The slight decrease in service demands would not alter the sizes
of the potable and recycled storage and pumping facilities. However, the project engineer
would need to modify the potable water, recycled water, and collection system pipeline
alignments so that they are within approved street alignments and provi de service demands.
City of Dublin At Dublin – Errata to the Final EIR
| Page 27
1/16/20
With adherence to applicable regulations, there would be no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts to water supplies or treatment facilities, wastewater treatment facilities,
stormwater drainage facilities, and landfills for the revised project beyond what was analyzed
and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous project and no other CEQA standards for
recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is required.
Energy Conservation
The Final EIR determined that project construction activities would not substantially affect
existing energy or fuel supplies or resources based on the previous project’s low construction
fuel use proportional to State and Alameda County consumption.
The Final EIR determined that operation of uses under the previous project would not
substantially affect existing energy or fuel supplies or resources. The project would comply with
applicable energy standards and new capacity would not be required. Impacts were determined
to be less than significant.
Given the revised project proposes a reduction in residential units and commercial uses, there
would be a reduced demand to energy consumption for construction and operation than
previously analyzed in the Final EIR. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements,
there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to energy conservation
for the revised project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the Final EIR for the previous
project and no other CEQA standards for recirculation are met. Therefore, no recirculation of
the EIR is required.
Not to scale
At Dublin - Revised
Errata
Figure 1: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations
Source: Shea Properties, 2019
Not to scaleAt Dublin - RevisedErrataSource: Shea ProperƟ es, 2019Figure 2: Conceptual Site Plan
Not to scale
At Dublin - Revised
Errata
Source: Shea Properties, 2019
Figure 3: Phasing Plan
At Dublin - Revised
Errata
Source: Shea Properties, 2019
Figure 4a: Project Renderings - Commercial
Source: Shea Properties, 2019
Figure 4b: Project Renderings - Commercial Plazas
At Dublin - RevisedErrata
At Dublin - Revised
Errata
Source: Shea Properties, 2019
Figure 4c: Project Renderings - Multifamily
Source: Shea Properties, 2019
Figure 4d: Project Renderings - Single-Family Residential
At Dublin - RevisedErrataSource: Shea ProperƟ es, 2019Figure 4e: Project Renderings - View North on Tassajara Road at I-580 Overcrossing
1
EXHIBIT C
FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091
and 15163(e), the City Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to the
potential for significant supplemental environmental impacts from the At Dublin project
(“Project”) and means for mitigating those impacts. Many of the impacts and mitigation
measures in the following findings are summarized rather than set forth in full. The text
of the Draft and Final EIRs (EIRs) should be consulted for a complete descr iption of the
impacts and mitigations. Findings pursuant to section 21081(c) relating to Project
Alternatives are made in Exhibit E.
These findings do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact
contained in the EIR. Instead, the findings provide a summary description of each impact,
describe the applicable mitigation measures identified in the EIR and adopted by the City,
and state the findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted
mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions
can be found in the EIR, and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the
discussion and analysis in those documents supporting the EIR’s determinations
regarding mitigation measures and the Project’s impacts and mitigation measures
designed to address those impacts. The facts supporting these findings are found in the
record as a whole for the Project.
In making these findings, the City ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the
analysis and explanation in the EIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates in these
findings the determinations and conclusions of the EIR relating to environmental impacts
and mitigation measures, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions
are specifically and expressly modified by these findings.
SECTION 5. AESTHETICS
Impact AES-4: Introduce new light and glare to the project site and project area
Mitigation Measure:
MM AES-4.1: Exterior Lighting Control Plan
To minimize the adverse impact associated with light and glare, the applicant shall submit
an exterior lighting control plan for review and approval by the Community Development
Director prior to issuance of a building permit for vertical construction for building lighting
or approval of the final landscape plan for all other site lighting.
The exterior lighting control plan shall address the design and install all permanent
exterior lighting and all temporary construction lighting such that: (a) lamps and reflectors
are not directly visible from beyond the project site, as feasible; (b) lighting does not cause
excessive reflected glare; (c) direct lighting does not illuminate the nighttime sky; (d)
2
illumination of the project and its immediate vicinity is minimized; and (e) the lighting
mitigation plan complies with all relevant local policies and ordinances.
The exterior lighting control plan shall include the following:
• A photometric study that demonstrates spillover horizontal foot -candle (fc) levels
do not exceed 1.0 fc at the project site boundary.
• Identification of the location and direction of light fixtures that take the lighting
control requirements into account;
• Lighting design that considers setbacks of project features from the site boundary
to aid in satisfying the lighting control requirements;
• Lighting design that incorporates fixture hoods/shielding, with light directed
downward or toward the area to be illuminated;
• Light fixtures that are visible from beyond the project boundary shall have cutoff
angles that are sufficient to prevent lamps and reflectors from being visible beyond
the project boundary, except where necessary for security;
• Lighting figures that are a minimum necessary brightness, consistent with
operational safety and security; and
• Where lights in high illumination areas not occupied on a continuous basis, utilize
timer switches or motion detectors so that the lights operate only when the area is
occupied.
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the
EIR.
Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact
will be less than significant.
Impact AES-5: Contribute to cumulatively considerable aesthetic impacts
Mitigation Measure:
Implement MM AES-4.1: Exterior Lighting Control Plan
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the
EIR.
Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact
will be less than significant.
3
SECTION 6. AIR QUALITY
Impact AQ-1: Conflict with implementation of San Francisco Bay Area 2017 Clean
Air Plan
Mitigation Measures:
MM AQ-2.1 BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures
During construction, the following BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures air
pollution control measures shall be implemented:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas,
and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall be
covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using
wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power
sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon
as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of
Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at
all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance
with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified
mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the
Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be
visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction Equipment
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit
documentation to the City of Dublin that demonstrate that all off -road diesel-powered
construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meets United States Environmental
Protection Agency Tier 4 Final off-road emissions standards.
MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating
The applicant shall require by contract specifications that the interior architectural coating
(paint and primer) products used would have a volatile organic compound rating of 20
grams per liter or less while exterior architectural coating must be less th an 100 grams
4
per liter. Contract specifications shall be included in the construction documents for the
project, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin.
MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces
The installation of wood-burning devices shall be prohibited within the development per
Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regulation 6, Rule 3. The purpose of this rule
is to limit emissions of particulate matter and visible emissions from wood -burning devices
used for primary heat, supplemental heat or ambiance. This prohibition shall be noted on
the deed for future property owners to obey. Natural gas fireplaces are acceptable.
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effect identified
in the EIR. The project’s cumulative impact would exceed the air quality thresholds
established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for certain emissions (See
Impact AQ-2). The project would conflict with the attainment of the Clean Air Plan. For
the impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable, no additional feasible
measures are available to further reduce these impacts. Therefore, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Finding: Despite implementation of MM AQ-2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4, the
project’s cumulative impact would exceed the air quality thresholds established by the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District for certain emissions and conflict with the
attainment of the Clean Air Plan.
Impact AQ-2: Violates air quality standard or contributes substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation
Mitigation Measures:
Implement MM AQ-2.1: BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, MM AQ-2.2:
Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction Equipment, MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating,
and MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effect identified
in the EIR. The project’s cumulative impact would exceed the air quality thresholds
established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for certain emissions. For
those impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable, no additional feasible
measures are available to further reduce these impacts. Therefore, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
5
Rationale for Finding: Despite implementation of MM AQ-2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4, the
project’s impact would exceed the air quality thresholds established by the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District for certain emissions.
Impact AQ‐5: Contribute to cumulatively considerable air quality impacts.
Mitigation Measures:
Implement MM AQ-2.1: BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, MM AQ-2.2:
Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction Equipment, MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating,
and MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effect identified
in the EIR. Despite implementation of MM AQ-2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4, the project’s
cumulative impact would exceed the air quality thresholds established by the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District for certain emissions. For those impacts determined to
be significant and unavoidable, no additional feasible measures are av ailable to further
reduce these impacts. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be
adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact
would remain significant and unavoidable.
SECTION 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact BIO-1: Have a substantial adverse effect on special-status plant and wildlife
species
Mitigation Measures:
MM BIO-1.1: Special-Status Plants Avoidance and Mitigation
Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for development activities
involving ground disturbance, the project applicant shall prepare the documentation
acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance
with the following:
Prior to any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities, a focused survey shall be
conducted to determine the presence of Congdon’s tarplant or other special -status
species with potential to occur within the project area. Surveys shall be conducted in
accordance with the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status
Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFG 2009). These guidelines
require rare plant surveys to be conducted at the proper time of year when rare or
endangered species are both “evident” and identifiable. Field surveys shall be scheduled
6
to coincide with known blooming periods, and/or during periods of physiological
development that are necessary to identify the plant species of concern. If no special -
status plant species are found, then the project will not have any impacts to the species
and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. If any of the species are found on -
site and cannot be avoided, the following measures shall be required:
1. If the survey determines that Congdon’s tarplant or other special-status species
are present within or adjacent to the project site, direct and indirect impacts of the
project on the species shall be avoided where feasible through the establishment
of activity exclusion zones, where no ground-disturbing activities shall take place,
including construction of new facilities, construction staging, or other temporary
work areas. Activity exclusion zones for special-status plant species shall be
established prior to construction activities around each occupied habitat site, the
boundaries of which shall be clearly marked with standard orange plastic
construction exclusion fencing or its equivalent. The establishment of activity
exclusion zones shall not be required if no construction-related disturbances would
occur within 250 feet of the occupied habitat site. The size of activity exclusion
zones may be reduced through consultation with a qualified biologist and with
concurrence from CDFW based on site-specific conditions.
2. If exclusion zones and avoidance of impacts on Congdon’s tarplant or other
special-status species within the project area are not feasible, then the loss of
individuals or occupied habitat of special-status plants shall be compensated for
through the acquisition, protection, and subsequent management of other existing
occurrences. Before the implementation of compensation measures, the project’s
applicant shall provide detailed information to the CDFW and lead agency on the
quality of preserved habitat, location of the preserved occurrences, provisions for
protecting and managing the areas, the responsible parties involved, and other
pertinent information that demonstrates that the compensation population will be
properly preserved and managed. A mitigation pl an identifying appropriate
mitigation ratios at a minimum ratio of 1:1 [one preserved acre for each impacted
arce] to ensure no net loss of acreage shall be developed in consultation with the
CDFW and approved by the City prior to the commencement of any a ctivities that
would impact Congdon’s tarplant or other species with potential to occur within the
project area. A mitigation plan may include but is not limited to the following: the
acquisition of off-site mitigation areas presently supporting the Congdon’s tarplant
or other special-status species, purchase of credits in a mitigation bank that is
approved to sell credits for special-status plants, or payment of in-lieu fees to a
public agency or conservation organization (e.g., a local land trust) for th e
preservation and management of existing populations of special-status plants.
MM BIO-1.2: Burrowing Owl Avoidance, Exclusion and Required Measures
Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for development activities
involving ground disturbance, the project applicant shall prepare the documentation
acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance
with the following:
7
Mitigate for Loss of Burrowing Owl Habitat
The majority of project site, with the exception of delineated wetlands, developed areas,
and areas with tree cover (73.64 acres), has been determined to potentially provide
habitat or foraging areas for burrowing owl. Therefore, the applicant shall imple ment
compensatory mitigation for loss of owl habitat in accordance with the standards set forth
in the Required Mitigation Plan section below.
Additional measures below will avoid direct impacts to individuals that may occupy the
site during construction and implementation of the project.
Conduct a Burrowing Owl Survey
Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall retain a qualified
biologist to conduct two pre-construction surveys for the Western burrowing owl on the
project site.
The first survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to ground -disturbing
activities and the second survey within 48 hours of initial ground disturbance. The surveys
shall be conducted in accordance with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation. If the surveys determine owls are present, then the measures set forth below
shall be followed.
Implement Avoidance Measures
If direct impacts to owls can be avoided, prior to the first ground -disturbing activities, the
project applicant shall implement the following avoidance measures during all phases of
construction to reduce or eliminate potential impacts to California burrowing owls.
• A pre-construction survey shall be performed prior to start of ground disturbance
activities. This survey will occur regardless of the time of year, as burrowing owls
may use the project site during the non-nesting season. The survey shall be
performed according to the standards set forth by the Staff Report for Burrowing
Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012).
• The project site should be managed to prevent burrowing owl from occupying the
site prior to any project activities
• All suitable burrows should be closed by hand once it has been determined that
the burrow is unoccupied.
• Maintenance of the property to ensure burrows are not rebuilt will be necessary
throughout the year to preclude the presence of burrowing owl and suitable
burrowing owl habitat. Maintenance should occur approximately every 8 weeks,
and burrows should be inspected prior to closure to ensure no burrowing owl are
present. The frequency of burrow closure may be adjusted based upon ground
squirrel and burrow reestablishment progress.
• The debris within the project site should be removed.
• If discing is chosen as a preferred method for b urrow maintenance, it is
recommended that any sensitive biological resources (populations of rare plants,
wetland boundaries and any active bird nests, etc.) be flagged by a qualified
biologist and avoided.
8
Conduct Burrow Exclusion
If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible, prior to the first ground -
disturbing activities, the project applicant, in consultation with the CDFW, shall prepare a
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan as indicated and following the CDFW 2012 Staff Report
on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Monitoring of the excluded owls shall be carried out as per
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2012 Staff Report.
Required Mitigation Plan
The project applicant shall consult with the CDFW and develop a detailed mitigation pl an
that shall include replacement of impacted habitat, number of burrows, and burrowing owl
at a ratio approved by CDFW to ensure no net loss of species. The mitigation plan shall
comply with the requirements set forth in Appendix A of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on
Burrowing Owl Mitigation and the plan shall be reviewed and approved by CDFW and the
City prior to the first ground-disturbing activities.
MM BIO-1.3: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures
Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for development activities
from February 1 to August 31, the applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable
to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the
following:
Pre-construction Breeding Bird Surveys
No more than 14 days prior to initial ground disturbance and vegetation removal during
the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), the project applicant shall retain a qualified
biologist to perform pre-construction breeding bird surveys. If any nests are found, they
shall be flagged and protected with a suitable buffer based on the species. Buffer
distance may vary based on species and conditions, but is typically at least 50 feet, and
up to 250 feet for raptors. As used in this measure, “suitable” me ans the distance a
qualified biologist determines is necessary to ensure no disturbance to nesting. The
buffer distance is measured as the straight-line distance between an active nest and the
activity, taking both horizontal and vertical distance into account. This mitigation measure
does not apply to ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities that occur outside
of the nesting season (September 1 to January 31).
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the
EIR.
Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact
will be less than significant.
Impact BIO-3: Have a substantial adverse effect on wetlands or jurisdictional
features
9
Mitigation Measure:
MM BIO-3.1: Wetland Mitigation Plan
Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for development activities
involving ground disturbance, the project applicant shall prepare the documentation
acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance
with the following:
The project applicant shall the acquire the appropriate applicable permit(s) (e.g. Section
404, Section 401, Porter-Cologne) from the respective regulating agency(s) (i.e. USACE
and/or RWQCB). If necessary, a wetland mitigation plan shall be prepared t hat will
establish suitable compensatory mitigation based on the concept of no net loss of wetland
habitat values or acreages, to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies.
The wetland mitigation plan shall include measures for avoidance, minimization a nd
compensation for wetland impacts. Avoidance and minimization measures may include
the designation of buffers around wetland features to be avoided or project design
measures. Compensation measures shall include the preservation and/or creation of
wetlands or other waters. The final mitigation ratio (the amount of wetlands and other
water created or preserved compared to the amount impacted) shall be determined by
the applicable resource agency(s). The wetland mitigation plan shall include the followin g:
1. Description of wetland types and their expected functions and values;
2. Performance standards and monitoring protocol to ensure the success of the
mitigation wetlands over a period of time to be determined by the resource
agencies;
3. Engineering plans showing the location, size and configuration of wetlands to be
created or preserved;
4. An implementation schedule showing the construction or preservation of mitigation
areas shall commence prior to or concurrently with the initiation of construction;
and
5. A description of legal protection of the preserved wetlands (such as dedication of
fee title, conservation easement and/or an endowment held by an approved
conservation organization, government agency or mitigation bank).
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the
EIR.
Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact
will be less than significant.
Impact BIO-6: Contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on biological
resources
10
Mitigation Measures:
Implement MM BIO-1.1: Special-Status Plants Avoidance and Mitigation, MM BIO-1.2:
Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Exclusion Measures, MM BIO-1.3: Nesting Bird Avoidance
Measures, and MM BIO-3.1: Wetland Mitigation Plan
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the
EIR.
Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact
will be less than significant.
SECTION 8. CULTURAL & TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CR-1: Cause a substantial adverse change to a known archeological
resource
Mitigation Measure:
MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological Discovery During Construction
If buried historic or archaeological resources are discovered during construction,
operations shall stop within 50 feet of the find and a qualified archaeologist shall be
consulted to evaluate the resource in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15064.5. The
applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction
contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the resource does not qualify as a
significant resource, then no further protection or study is necessary. If the resource does
qualify as a significant resource then the impacts shall be avoided by project activities. If
the resource cannot be avoided, adverse impacts to the resource shall be addressed.
The archaeologist shall make recommendations concerning approp riate mitigation
measures that shall be implemented to protect the resources, including but not limited to
excavation and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA
Guidelines. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction within the
project area should be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation
(DPR) 523 forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria.
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the
EIR.
Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact
will be less than significant.
11
Impact CR-2: Directly impact a paleontological resource or unique geologic feature
Mitigation Measure:
MM CR-2.1: Paleontological Resource Monitoring
In the event a fossil(s) is discovered during construction for the project, excavations within
50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or delayed until the discovery is examined
by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrat e Paleontology
standards.
The applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction
contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the paleontological resources are
found to be significant, they shall be avoided by project construction activities and
recovered by a qualified paleontologist. Upon completion of the recovery, a
paleontological assessment shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist to determine
if further monitoring for paleontological resources is required. The assessment shall
include (1) the results of any geotechnical investigation prepared for the project area, (2)
specific details of the construction plans for the project area, (3) background research,
and (4) limited subsurface investigation within the project area.
If a high potential to encounter paleontological resources is confirmed, a monitoring plan
of further project subsurface construction shall be prepared in conjunction with this
assessment. After project subsurface construction has ended, a report documenting
monitoring, methods, findings, and further recommendations regarding paleontological
resources shall be prepared and submitted to the Director of Community Development.
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the
EIR.
Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation me asures, the impact
will be less than significant.
Impact CR-4: Contribute to cumulatively considerable effects on cultural resources
Mitigation Measures:
Implement MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological Discovery During Construction, and
MM CR-2.1: Paleontological Resource Monitoring
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact.
12
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the
EIR.
Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact
will be less than significant.
SECTION 9. GEOLOGY & SOILS
Impact GEO-1: Expose people or structures to potential risk of loss or injury
associated with seismic hazards
Mitigation Measure:
MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Recommendations
The project applicant shall consult with a registered geotechnical engineer to prepare a
design-level geotechnical investigation that incorporates the recommendations in the
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration. The design-level geotechnical report shall
address, but not be limited to, site preparation and grading, building foundations, and
CBC seismic design parameters. A design -level geotechnical report shall be prepared
and submitted in conjunction with Building Permit application(s) and reviewed and
approved by the City of Dublin. Recommendations from the design -level geotechnical
report shall be incorporated into the final project design and construction documents for
each phase of the project.
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the
EIR.
Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact
will be less than significant.
Impact GEO-2: Trigger or accelerate substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil
Mitigation Measure:
Implement MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration
Recommendations
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the
EIR.
13
Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact
will be less than significant.
Impact GEO‐3: Expose people or structures to substantial safety risks as a result
of liquefaction
Mitigation Measure:
Implement MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration
Recommendations
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the
EIR.
Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact
will be less than significant.
Impact GEO‐4: Contribute to cumulatively considerable effects on geology and
soils
Mitigation Measure:
Implement MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration
Recommendations
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the
EIR.
Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact
will be less than significant.
SECTION 11. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact HAZ-1: Exposure to known hazardous contaminants
Mitigation Measure:
MM HAZ- 1.1: Disposal of Deleterious Materials
14
Prior to any ground disturbance on Planning Area 3 (APN 985 -52-24), the project
applicant shall retain a qualified hazardous materials contractor to properly dispose of the
observed deleterious materials, and any others discovered during remediation.
Additionally, the applicant shall close the abandoned Zone 7 water supply well in
accordance with applicable regulatory agency requirements.
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the
EIR.
Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact
will be less than significant.
Impact HAZ‐4: Contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts to hazards and
hazardous materials
Mitigation Measure:
Implement MM HAZ- 1.1: Disposal of Deleterious Materials
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the
EIR.
Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact
will be less than significant.
SECTION 14. NOISE & VIBRATION
Impact N-1: Cause a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during
construction that would substantially disturb sensitive receptors
Mitigation Measure:
MM N-1.1: Construction Noise Reduction
To reduce the effects of construction noise, the City of Dublin shall ensure that the project
applicants include the following on all construction contracts for the project:
• The project shall submit a Construction Noise Management Program that identifies
measures proposed to minimize construction noise impacts on existing residents.
• All construction operations shall comply with local noise standards and be limited
to normal daylight hours. All stationary equipment shall be adequately muffled and
located away from sensitive receptors. The construction contractor shall limit all
15
on-site noise-producing construction activities, including deliveries and warming
up of equipment, to the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., daily.
• The construction contractor shall ensure that all internal combustion engine - driven
equipment is equipped with mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for
the equipment.
• The construction contractor shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment as
far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near
a construction project area. In addition, the project contractor shall place such
stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from
sensitive receptors nearest the project site.
• The construction contractor shall prohibit unnecessary idling of internal
combustion engines.
• The construction contractor shall, to the maximum extent practical, locate on-site
equipment staging areas so as to maximize the distance between construction -
related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during
all project construction.
The construction contractor shall designate a noise disturbance coordinator who would
be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a
complaint is received, the disturbance coordinator shall notify the City within 24 hours of
the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaints (starting too early, bad
muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem, as
deemed acceptable by the City of Dublin Community Development Department. The
construction contractor shall conspicuously post the contact name and telephone number
for the noise disturbance coordinator at the construction site.
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the
EIR.
Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact
will be less than significant.
Impact N-3: Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
Mitigation Measure:
MM N-3.1: Noise Attenuation
Prior to issuance of building permits for Planning Areas 2, 3, and 4, a detailed acoustical
study based on architectural plans shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant
and submitted to the Community Development Department to demonstrate that all
residential units would meet the City’s 60 dBA exterior noise standard for all patios,
balconies, and common outdoor living areas. In addition, the acoustical study shall
demonstrate that interior noise levels at all residential units at the project s ite would meet
16
the City’s 45 dBA threshold. This mitigation measure complies with the applicable
sections of the California Building Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations)
and City Implementing Policy H. The necessary noise reduction may be achieved by
implementing noise control measures at the receiver locations. Where closed windows
are required to achieve the interior 45 dBA CNEL limit, project plans and specifications
shall include ventilation as required by the California Building Code. The final grading
and building plans shall incorporate the required noise barriers (patio enclosure, wall,
berm, or combination wall/berm), and the property owner/developer shall install these
barriers and enclosures.
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the
EIR.
Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact
will be less than significant.
Impact N-4: Result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels
Mitigation Measure:
Implement MM N-1.1: Construction Noise Reduction
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the
EIR.
Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact
will be less than significant.
Impact N-6: Contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on noise
Mitigation Measures:
Implement MM N-1.1: Construction Noise Reduction, MM N-3.1: Noise Attenuation
Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the
EIR.
17
Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact
will be less than significant.
SECTION 17. TRANSPORTATION & CIRCLUATION
Impact TR-1: Create a potentially dangerous new intersection
Mitigation Measure:
MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design Features for the New Project Intersection
on Dublin Boulevard
Turn Movement Design Features on Dublin Boulevard
Prior to approval of the first building permit for development in Planning Area 1 or 2, the
applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director that design
features have been incorporated into the development plans that prohibit northbound and
southbound left turn movements onto Dublin Boulevard at the new intersection during the
weekday and weekend time periods (defined below); or alternative improvements have
been incorporated that modify or eliminate the need for the prohibited turn movements.
Time periods are defined as:
Weekday = 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM
Weekday = 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM
Weekend Peak = 10:30 AM to 2:30 PM
Should the City determine that queuing impacts extend beyond these time periods, the
City may modify these time periods accordingly to ensure impacts remain less than
significant.
• Design features could include:
• Moveable bollards,
• Gated lane control systems,
• Raised curbs,
• Temporary traffic control devices,
• Changeable message signs,
• Flashing signal heads,
• Modifying the ingress/egress circulation on Brannigan Street and/or Tassajara
Road, and/or
• Other means as deemed acceptable by the Public Works Director.
At any such time after full build-out and occupancy of the project, the applicant may submit
additional traffic analysis to the City, that would be independently verified, demonstrating
that the time periods may be adjusted or that the prohibited turning movements are no
longer required, such that impacts are maintained at a less than significant level, as
deemed acceptable by the Public Works Director.
18
Impact TR-2: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Existing + Project
condition that exceed established LOS standards
Mitigation Measures:
MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements to El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack
London Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of
Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of Pleasanton to pay the
project’s proportionate fair share (2 percent) for improvements to the intersection of El
Charro Road / Jack London Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the
signal timing splits by adjusting the maximum green time for each movement to better
match the vehicle demand for that particular movement. The primary change would be
to increase the split for the eastbound left turn movement due to the high eastbound left
turn traffic volumes.
MM TR-2-2: Implementation of a Travel Demand Management (TDM Program)
Travel Demand Management (TDM) Program
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall submit a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to the City of Dublin for review and
approval. The project applicant shall be responsible for fully funding and implementing
the TDM program.
The TDM program shall be prepared by a qualified transportation consultant/ engineer in
coordination with the project applicant and City staff. The TDM program may include but
not be limited to the following measures:
• Implement a subsidy program that would provide BART tickets at no co st or
subsidized rate to all employees.
• Provide a shuttle service between the project site and the East Dublin/Pleasanton
BART station.
• Implement a Commuter Tax Benefit Program or equivalent, per Section 132(F) of
federal tax code, where an employer can offer its employees a monthly subsidy for
public transit.
• Join City Car Share or similar program as a "Biz Prime" member and pay for
membership of a minimum of 5% employees.
• Provide bicycle parking facilities for 20% of car spaces, or a number approved by
the City.
• Provide secured bicycle parking (lockers or cages) for employees.
• Partner with local businesses (e.g. Kaiser Medical Center) in the formation of a
Transportation Management Association (TMA)
• Facilitate employer‐sponsored carpooling and ride‐matching programs.
• Provide preferential carpool parking.
• Implement a guaranteed ride home program.
• Provide an on‐site car share program.
19
• Encourage employee flexible work scheduling practices to avoid peak‐hour travel
(flex time, staggered shifts, compressed work schedules, etc.).
• Co-sponsor a transportation fair once a year with At Dublin businesses. Invite
Wheels, 511.org, and at least two other commute alternative service providers to
attend and distribute commute alternative information. Provide refreshments to
participants.
• Promote and distribute hard copy information quarterly to all employees regarding
511, Ridematch, Guaranteed Ride Home Program, Wheels/LAVTA, shuttles to
regional transit, City CarShare program, and other relevant alternative
transportation options.
• Distribute information quarterly regarding transportation alternatives by email to all
employees.
• Provide a kiosk(s) with brochures, and similar items that provide information about
the TDM program. Create a website with similar information.
• Appoint a Commute Coordinator to facilitate information dissemination.
The project applicant shall be required to submit a yearly report on/or before September
30 detailing the current status of the TDM measures, summarizing the program’s
effectiveness, identifying any changes to the TDM measures that occurred in the previous
year, and identifying additional steps to be taken, if necessary, to reduce traffic impacts.
Additional details regarding TDM monitoring shall be developed as part of the
development of the TDM program.
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable to El Charro Road / Stoneridge
Drive / Jack London Boulevard, Less than significant in all other locations.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been identified which avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR ; however, the intersection of El
Charro Road/Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard is located within the City of
Pleasanton and therefore out of the authority of the City of Dublin to ensure
implementation. For the impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable, no
additional feasible measures are available to further reduce these impacts. Therefore, a
Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Finding: The mitigation measures would improve operations to an
acceptable LOS D in the PM peak hour. However, since the mitigation is located in the
City of Pleasanton and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee implementation of the
mitigation measure, the impacts remains significant and unavoidable.
Impact TR-3: Cause intersection queues to operate below acceptable levels under
Existing + Project conditions
Mitigation Measures:
Implement MM TR-2.2: Implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
20
MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (17%) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive /
Central Parkway. The improvements shall consist of extending the westbound left turn
pocket by 55 feet from 190 feet to 245 feet. The re is an existing raised median that can
be modified to lengthen the turn pocket. Because this improvement project is not in the
Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of
the improvement costs.
MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (7 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive
/ Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the green time for the
westbound left turn movement. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic
Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the
improvement costs.
MM TR-3.3: Existing + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (15 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Tassajara
Road / Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the green time for
the eastbound left turn movement. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic
Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the
improvement costs.
MM TR-3.4: Existing + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / EB I -580 Ramps
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of
Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of Pleasanton to pay the
project’s proportionate fair share (16 percent) of improvements to the intersection of
Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps. The improvements shall consist of extending the
southbound left turn pocket by 25 feet from 405 feet to 430 feet. There is an existing
raised median that can be modified to lengthen the turn pocket.
MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project
Driveway
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the entirety
(100 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard.
The improvements shall consist of adjusting the green time for the northbound left turn
movement. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program,
the project applicant shall pay for the entirety of the mitigation costs.
Resulting Significance: Significant and unavoidable to Santa Rita Road/EB 1-580
Ramps, Less than significant in all other locations.
21
Finding: Changes or alterations have been identified which avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR; however, the Santa Rita Road /
EB I-580 Ramps is located within the City of Pleasanton and therefore out of the authority
of the City of Dublin to ensure implementation. For the impacts determined to be
significant and unavoidable, no additional feasible measures are available to further
reduce these impacts. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be
adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Finding: Implementation of MM TR-2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.5 would reduce
impacts to less than significant. MM TR-3.4 would extend the southbound left turn pocket
by 25 feet from 405 feet to 430 feet. The increase in the turn pocket storage of 25 feet
would mitigate the project’s increase in the queue by 25 feet. However, since the
intersection is located in the City of Pleasanton and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee
implementation of the mitigation measure, the impacts remains significant and
unavoidable.
Impact TR-4: Increase vehicle densities along study freeway segments and ramps
in the Existing + Project condition that exceed established LOS standards
Mitigation Measures:
Implement MM TR-2.2: Implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Improvements
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of
Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the Tri-Valley Transportation
Council (TVTC) to pay all applicable regional transportation impact fees related to freeway
improvements.
MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering Improvements
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay for the City of
Dublin to work with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to review the ramp metering rates
at the WB I-580 Tassajara Road diagonal on-ramp in the AM peak period. Increasing the
ramp metering rate would reduce the vehicle queues on Tassajara Road. In addition, the
project applicant shall pay for the City of Dublin to work with Caltrans and the City of
Pleasanton to review the ramp metering rates at the EB I-580 El Charro Road loop on-
ramp in the PM peak period. Increasing the ramp metering rate would reduce the vehicle
queues on El Charro Road. However, since the City of Dublin does not have control over
ramp metering rates at this location, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Finding: Changes or alterations have been identified which avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR; however as the construction
timing of these improvements is unknown as full funding has not been identified, this
22
impact would remain significant and unavoidable. For the impacts determined to be
significant and unavoidable, no additional feasible measures are available to further
reduce these impacts. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be
adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Finding: The implementation of MM TR-2.2, 4.1 and 4.2 would reduce
impacts, but the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable because the impacted
locations are outside the jurisdiction of the City and implementation is beyond the City’s
control.
Impact TR-5: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Near-Term +
Project condition that exceed established LOS standards
Mitigation Measures:
Implement MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements to El Charro Road / Stoneridge
Drive / Jack London Boulevard, MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design Features
for the New Project Intersection on Dublin Boulevard, and MM TR-2.2: Implementation of
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program,
MM TR-5.1: Near-Term + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las Positas
Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of
Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of Pleasanton to pay the
project’s proportionate fair share (8 percent) for improvements to the intersection of Santa
Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the
coordination of the traffic signals along Santa Rita Road by increasing the cycle length
from 105 seconds to 115 seconds.
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable for El Charro Road / Stoneridge
Drive / Jack London Boulevard and Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard; Less than
significant in all other locations.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the
EIR. However, the impacts to for El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London
Boulevard and Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard would remain significant and
unavoidable. For the impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable, no additional
feasible measures are available to further reduce these impacts. Therefore, a Statement
of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Finding: Implementation of MM TR-1 and 2.2 would reduce the related
impact to less than significant. However, the impacts to for El Charro Road / Stoneridge
Drive / Jack London Boulevard and Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard would
remain significant and unavoidable because the impacted locations are outside the
jurisdiction of the City and implementation is beyond the City’s control.
23
Impact TR-6: Cause intersection queues to operate below acceptable levels under
Near-Term + Project conditions
Mitigation Measures:
Implement MM TR-2.2: Implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program, MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Central
Parkway, MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin
Boulevard, and MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / The
Shops/ Project Driveway
MM TR-6.1: Near-Term + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (15%) of improvements to the intersection of Tassajara Road /
Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the cycle length in the AM
peak hour to be 155 seconds and adjusting the green time for the northbound left turn
movement in the PM Peak hour. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic
Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the
improvement costs.
MM TR-6.2: Near-Term + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (6 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Dublin
Boulevard / Brannigan Street. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the green time
for the eastbound left turn movement. Be cause this improvement project is not in the
Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of
the improvement costs.
MM TR-6.3: Near-term + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project
Driveway
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the entirety
(100 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard.
The improvements shall consist of adjusting the cycle length at t his intersection from 110
seconds to 120 seconds. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact
Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay for the entirety of the mitigation costs.
Resulting Significance: Significant and unavoidable to Tassajara Road / Dublin
Boulevard, impacts to all other locations are less than significant.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the
EIR; however, the queue length would stretch beyond the storage pockets of the
northbound and westbound turns at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin
Boulevard in the near-term condition which would remain significant and unavoidable. For
the impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable, no additional feasible
24
measures are available to further reduce these impacts. Therefore, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Finding: MM TR-6.1 would not reduce the westbound left turn queue to be
contained within the storage pocket or to better than without project conditions. Therefore,
the queuing impact to the northbound left turn movement in the PM peak hour and SAT
peak hour remains significant and unavoidable. Implementation of MM TR-6.1 would not
reduce the northbound left turn queue to be contained within the storage pocket or to
better than without project conditions in the Saturday peak hour. Therefore, the queuing
impact to the westbound left turn movement in the Saturday peak hour remains significant
and unavoidable. With the implementation of mitigation measures , for all other
intersections, the impact would be less than significant at all other intersections.
Impact TR-7: Increase vehicle densities along study freeway segments and ramps
in the Near-Term + Project conditions that exceed established LOS standards
Mitigation Measure:
Implement MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Improvements, MM TR-2.2:
Implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program, and MM TR-
4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering Improvements
MM TR-7.1: Near-Term + Project Ramp Metering Improvements
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay for the City of
Dublin to work with Caltrans to review the ramp metering rates at the EB I -580 Hacienda
Drive loop on-ramp in the PM peak period. Increasing the ramp metering rate would
reduce the vehicle queues on Hacienda Drive.
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Finding: Changes or alterations have been identified which avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR; however as the construction
timing of these improvements is unknown as full funding has not been identified, this
impact would remain significant and unavoidable. For the impacts determined to be
significant and unavoidable, no additional feasible measures are available to further
reduce these impacts. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be
adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact
would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact TR-8: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Cumulative +
Project conditions that exceed established LOS standards
Mitigation Measures:
25
Implement MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design Features for the New Project
Intersection on Dublin Boulevard, MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements to El
Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard, and MM TR-2.2:
Implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program
MM TR-8.1: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (10 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda
Drive / Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the signal timing
splits. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the
project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs.
MM TR-8.2: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Brannigan Street / Dublin Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (8 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Brannigan
Street / Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adding a second
northbound left turn lane of equal length. The south leg of this intersection will likely need
to be widened to fit the additional northbound left turn lane. Since the western side of
Brannigan Street fronts the project, it is recommended that this improvement be installed
as part of the project to prevent future widening after the project has been constructed.
Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project
applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs.
MM TR-8.3: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Fallon Road / Dublin Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (2 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Fallon Road /
Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of installing a westbound right turn
overlap phase. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee
Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement
costs.
MM TR-8.4: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Keegan Street
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (5 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Dublin
Boulevard / Keegan Street. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the cycle length
to 150 seconds. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee
Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement
costs.
MM TR-8.5: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Lockhart Street
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (4 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Dublin
Boulevard / Lockhart Street. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the cycle
length to 150 seconds. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee
Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement
costs.
26
MM TR-8.6: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las Positas
Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of
Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of Pleasanton to pay the
project’s proportionate fair share (8 percent) for improvements to the intersection of Santa
Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the
coordination of the traffic signals along Santa Rita Road by increasing the cycle length
from 105 seconds to 145 seconds.
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable for Santa Rita Road/ Las Positas
Boulevard, less than significant in all other areas.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been identified which avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR , except for Santa Rita Road/Las
Positas Boulevard and El Charro Road/Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard which
would be significant and unavoidable. For the impacts determined to be significant and
unavoidable, no additional feasible measures are available to further redu ce these
impacts. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon
approval of the Project.
Rationale for Finding: Implementation of mitigation measures, would result in less than
significant impacts except for the impacts at Santa Rita Road/Las Positas Boulevard and
El Charro Road/Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard which be significant and
unavoidable because the locations are outside the City’s jurisdiction and the City does
not have control over the coordination of the traffic signals in the City of Pleasanton
Impact TR-9: Cause intersection queues to operate below acceptable levels under
Cumulative + Project conditions
Mitigation Measures:
Implement MM TR-2.2: Implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program, MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Central
Parkway, MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin
Boulevard, MM TR-6.1: Near-Term + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin
Boulevard, MM TR-6.2: Near-Term + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard /
Brannigan Street, MM TR-8.2: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Brannigan Street /
Dublin Boulevard, and MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road /
The Shops/ Project Driveway
MM TR-9.1: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Grafton Street
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (5 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Dublin
Boulevard / Grafton Street. The improvements shall consist of extending the eastbound
left turn pocket by 85 feet from 220 feet to 305 feet. There is an existing raised median
27
that can be modified to lengthen the turn pocket. The improvements shall also consist of
extending the westbound left turn pocket by 140 feet from 230 feet to 305 feet. There is
an existing raised median that can be modified to lengthen the turn pocket. Because this
improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall
pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs.
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable for Tassajara / Dublin Boulevard,
less than significant in all other areas.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in t he
EIR; however, the queue length would stretch beyond the storage pockets of the
northbound and westbound turns at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin
Boulevard and that impact would be significant and unavoidable. For the impacts
determined to be significant and unavoidable, no additional feasible measures are
available to further reduce these impacts.. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Finding: Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce impacts at
all intersections to less than significant except Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard.
Implementation of MM TR-6.1 would not reduce the westbound left turn queue to be
contained within the storage pocket or to better than without project conditions. Therefore,
the queuing impact to the westbound left turn movement in the AM peak hour, PM peak
hour, and SAT peak hour remains significant and unavoidable. Implementation of MM
TR-6.1 would not reduce the northbound left turn queue to be contained within the storage
pocket or to better than without project conditions in the S aturday peak hour. Therefore,
the queuing impact to the northbound left turn movement in the Saturday peak hour
remains significant and unavoidable.
Impact TR-10: Increase vehicle densities along study freeway segments and ramps
in the Cumulative + Project condition that exceed established LOS standards
Mitigation Measures:
Implement MM TR-2.2: Implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program, MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Improvements, MM TR-4.2:
Existing + Project Ramp Metering Improvements, and MM TR-7.1: Near-Term + Project
Ramp Metering Improvements
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Finding: Changes or alterations have been identified which avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR; however as the construction
timing of these improvements is unknown as well as full funding has not been identified,
this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. For the impacts determined to be
significant and unavoidable, no additional feasible measures are available to further
28
reduce these impacts. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be
adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Finding: The impact would remain significant and unavoidable because
the identified mitigation requires local and regional funding which has not been fully
identified and therefore cannot be guaranteed to be in place at the time of the impact .
Impact TR-11: Conflict with applicable congestion management program for
designated roads, highway, or freeways
Mitigation Measure:
Implement MM TR-2.2: Implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program and MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Improvements
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Finding: Changes or alterations have been identified which avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR; however as the timing of these
improvements is unknown as full funding has not been identified, this impact would
remain significant and unavoidable. For the impacts determined to be significant and
unavoidable, no additional feasible measures are available to further reduce these
impacts. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon
approval of the Project.
Rationale for Finding: The impact would remain significant and unavoidable
because the identified mitigation requires local and regional funding which has not been
fully identified and therefore cannot be guaranteed to be in place at the time of the impact.
Impact TR-13: Increase travel speeds along roadways that exceed established LOS
standards
Mitigation Measure:
Implement MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design Features for the New Project
Intersection on Dublin Boulevard and MM TR-2.2: Implementation of Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Finding: MM TR-1.1 would improve the average speed and LOS to an acceptable LOS
D in the Existing + Project weekday AM peak hour and thereby reduce impacts to less -
than-significant; however, MM TR-1.1 would not improve the average speed and LOS to
an acceptable LOS D in the Near-term + Project weekday PM peak hour. For the impacts
determined to be significant and unavoidable, no additional feasible measures are
available to further reduce these impacts. Therefore, the impact would remain significant
29
and unavoidable. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted
upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact
would remain significant and unavoidable.
1
EXHIBIT D
FINDINGS CONCERNING INFEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES AND POTENTIAL
ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES
CEQA provides that decision makers should not approve a project as proposed if there
are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures that would substantially lessen
the significant impacts of the project (CEQA section 21002). The Project EIR ide ntified
feasible mitigation measures that would reduce most of the potentially significant impacts
to less than significant, as set forth in the Exhibit C findings, above. However, the
following impacts in the EIR either remained significant after mitigation or no feasible
mitigation was identified:
• Air Quality. The project would cause construction impacts associated with the
release of nitrogen oxides (NOx) that would exceed BAAQMD significance
thresholds. Despite implementation of MM AQ-2.2, construction-related NOx
emissions would remain significant and unavoidable. The project would also cause
operational impacts associated with the release of reactive organic gases (ROG)
and NOx that would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds. Despite
implementation of MM AQ-2.4, operational emissions from ROG and NOx would
remain significant and unavoidable. These impacts would occur through
cumulative conditions.
• Near-Term + Project Traffic Conditions. The project would increase the critical
delay movement by more than six (6) seconds to the intersection of Tassajara
Road / Dublin Boulevard (#14). This intersection would also experience an
increase in queuing due to the project of more than 25 feet during the we ekday
AM and PM peak periods and the weekend peak period. This intersection was
determined to be over capacity with no feasible mitigation available. Therefore, the
residual significance is significant and unavoidable.
In addition, there is a LOS impact at the intersection of Santa Rita Road / Las
Positas Boulevard (Int #18). The project adds 278 trips in the PM peak hour to an
already deficient intersection. Mitigation Measure TR-5.1 would improve the
operations to an acceptable LOS, however since this in tersection is located in the
City of Pleasanton, the City of Dublin cannot guarantee the implementation of the
mitigation and therefore it remains significant and unavoidable.
In addition, there is a LOS impact at the intersection of El Charro Road / Stoneridge
Drive / Jack London Boulevard (Int #29). The project adds 70 trips in the PM peak
hour to an already deficient intersection. Mitigation Measure TR-2.1 would improve
the operations to an acceptable LOS, however since this intersection is located in
the City of Livermore, the City of Dublin cannot guarantee the implementation of
the mitigation and therefore it remains significant and unavoidable.
• Cumulative + Project Traffic Conditions. The project would contribute new trips
to facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels; namely, Tassajara Road /
Dublin Boulevard (#14), Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard (#18), El Charro
Road / Jack London Boulevard (#29), Project Driveway / Dublin Boulevard (#35).
2
All feasible mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate impacts to levels better
than without project conditions; except for the intersection of Tassajara Road /
Dublin Boulevard (#14). No feasible mitigation is available for this intersection,
similar to the Near-term + Project conditions. In addition, Intersections #18 and
#29 are located outside of the City of Dublin, and therefore the implementation of
the mitigations cannot be guaranteed.
• Arterials. The project would contribute new trips to the already congested study
roadway segments along Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard. These arterials
are already over capacity in the future conditions and operate at LOS F based on
average travel speeds from the SimTraffic analysis. Since there are no feasible
mitigations to improve the average travel speeds to LOS D or better, the residual
significance is significant and unavoidable.
• Freeways. The project would contribute new trips to the already congested project
study freeway segments from Dougherty Road to Airway Boulevard on I-580.
These segments are already over capacity and should be operating at LOS F
volumes for the westbound direction in the AM peak hour and the volumes for the
eastbound direction in the PM peak hour are constrained by downstream
bottlenecks. While the project would be required to pay their proportional share of
traffic impact fees, these freeway segments will continue to operate in an over
capacity manner. Therefore, the residual significance is significa nt and
unavoidable.
• Ramp Metering. The project would contribute new trips to the Hacienda Drive loop
on- ramp to EB I-580 in the PM peak, to the Tassajara Road diagonal on -ramp to
WB I-580 in the AM peak, and to the El Charro Road loop on -ramp to EB I-580 in
the PM peak. Each of these on -ramps have queues that exceed the on-ramp
storage and extend onto the arterial with project traffic added. While the project
would be required to pay their proportional share of traffic impact fees, the
improvements cannot be guaranteed since it is under Caltrans jurisdiction.
Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable.
• Congestion Management Program. The project would contribute new trips to
Congestion Management Program facilities that would ope rate at unacceptable
levels (freeways and major arterials). All feasible mitigation measures are
proposed to mitigate impacts; however, in certain cases, they would not fully
mitigate the impact to a level of less than significant. In other cases, no feasible
mitigation is available. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and
unavoidable.
As required by CEQA, the following findings address whether there are any feasible
alternatives or any additional feasible mitigation measures available that would reduce
any of these impacts to less than significant.
FINDINGS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires that an EIR “describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or
to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of
3
the project…” (CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(a)). If a project alternative will
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of a proposed project, the
decision maker should not approve the proposed project unless it determines that specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,… make the project
alternative infeasible” (CEQA sections 21002 and 21081(a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines
section 15091(a)(3)).
Alternatives are identified and analyzed in Section 19 of the Draft EIR and include the
required No Project Alternative, Existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Alternative, and Commercial Development Task Force Land Plan Alternative. Each of the
alternatives was assessed for each resource topic and compared to potential Project
impacts. As further set forth below, the City Council considered the alternatives identified
and analyzed in Section 19 of the Draft EIR and finds them to be infeasible for specific
economic, social, or other considerations pursuant to CEQA sections 21002 and
21081(a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(3). For CEQA purposes, “feasible”
means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period
of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, technological, and legal
factors. (CEQA section 21061.1, CEQA Guidelines section 15364.)
In addition to the Project Alternatives described below, the Draft EIR considered and
rejected an alternative location, a high school project at the project site and a commercial
only project. The Draft EIR found that given the size of the project and the broad mix of
uses proposed, it was determined that there are no other suitable undeveloped parcels
that do not already have a pending application nor have existing entitlements in the City
of Dublin that could accommodate the land uses envisioned for the project. Additionally,
the project applicant does not own or otherwise control property of a similar size.
The Draft EIR found that the use of the project site as a high school would require a
significant change in City policy to change the land use of the entire project to a Public
use. It also found that the development of a high school on a portion of the project site
would result in a failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, as set forth in Section
3.3 of the Draft EIR. In addition, the DUSD has selected the Promenade as their preferred
site for the construction of a new high school.
During the public scoping process, comments were made recommending future
development that was commercial only (e.g. offices and retail), with no residential
development. Like the High School Project alternative, this alternative would preclude the
development of a mixed-use commercial and residential project as contemplated in the
City’s General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. It would also fail to meet most of
the basic project objectives as they relate to the development of residential uses. For
these reasons, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration.
The Project objectives are set forth in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR.
Alternative 1: No Project Alternative – DEIR Section 19.4
CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e)(3) requires that a “No -Project” alternative be
evaluated as part of an EIR, proceeding under one of two scenarios: the project area
remaining in its current state or development of the project area under its current General
4
Plan land use and zoning designations. Because the Project site currently has no
planning approvals for a specific project, the No Project Alternative consists of the Project
site remaining undeveloped for the foreseeable future.
The No Project Alternative would not advance any of the project objectives and the project
site would remain undeveloped for the foreseeable future. No disturbance or new
development would occur, thereby eliminating the potential for impacts on any of the
environmental resources analyzed in this EIR. Accordingly, this alternative would avoid
all of the project’s significant impacts (including significant and unavoidable impacts), as
well as the need to implement any mitigation measures.
The City finds this alternative infeasible because it would not be consistent with any of
the Project’s objectives. The No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the following
Project objectives:
Mix of Uses / Quality of Product
1. Provide a balanced mix of residential and commercial uses in the Eastern Extended
Planning Area that integrate into the existing urban systems and provide a safe
and attractive environment for living and working as encouraged by General Plan
Policy 2.6.4.A.1.
2. Provide uses that meet the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan’s objective to have higher
density housing, adjacent to commercial and employment opportunities.
3. Provide land uses and high-quality architecture that complement existing, adjacent
land uses and development.
Economic Growth
4. Have a positive contribution to the local economy through new capital investment,
the creation of new jobs, and the expansion of the tax base.
5. Add commercial, entertainment, and hotel uses that will have a synerg y with
existing retail in the City.
6. Provide a mix of residential and commercial uses that achieves a financially feasible
project.
7. Provide a project that balances housing with job-creating uses.
8. Develop a project that supports the success of the commercial uses through careful
site planning and infrastructure design.
Housing
9. Add to the City’s housing diversity in compliance with Housing Element Program 10
and General Plan Policy 2.6.1.A.1 by providing a range of housing products,
including apartments, townhomes, and small lot single-family detached homes.
10. Expand and improve the City’s housing supply by developing high -quality housing
in a portion of a City-designated Priority Development Area, which is a location
planned for growth under the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area.
11. Increase housing on the project site beyond what was initially planned under the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which will help in state-wide efforts to alleviate
California’s housing crisis.
Responsible Growth
12. Develop vacant and underutilized land in an urban area.
5
13. Locate commercial and residential uses where such uses can take advantage of
existing infrastructure and utilities.
14. Provide attractive, well-landscaped commercial uses close to Interstate 580 as a
buffer between the highway and residential uses and to further General Plan
Policy 10.5.3.E.
15. Enhance the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard consistent with
General Plan Goal 10.6.2.
Connectivity
16. Complete existing infrastructure to support General Plan buildout conditions
consistent with the East Dublin Specific Plan.
17. Implement the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and enhance bicycle and
pedestrian safety by providing on-site and off-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities
that link with existing facilities along Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive, and Dublin
Boulevard.
18. Reconfigure block size and provide publicly accessible parkways, park corridors
and paths to improve pedestrian connectivity between residential and commercial
uses.
19. Provide and improve pedestrian connections within the project and across
adjacent arterial streets to facilitate pedestrian activity between neighborhoods
and within the development.
Finding: The City Council considered the No Project Alternative and declines to adopt it
because it will not achieve any of the Project’s objectives and is infeasible for the specific
economic, social, or other considerations described above, as supported by the
administrative record for the Project.
Alternative 2: Existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Alternative
– DEIR Section 19.5
The Existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Alternative would allow
development consistent with existing land use designations and development densities
as described in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. As shown in Figure
3-3: Existing General Plan and Land Use Designations, this includes designations of
Neighborhood Commercial General Commercial, Medium High Density Residential, High
Density Residential, and Public/Semi-Public. Most the site is designated General
Commercial. As shown in Table 3-1: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Anticipated Project Site
Development, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan assumed development of 261 residential
units and 902,563 square feet of commercial.
Because the entirety of the project site is assumed to be disturbed, impacts to Cultural &
Tribal Resources, Geology & Soils, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Hydrology & Water
Quality, and construction related Air Quality/GHG Emissions and Noise would be similar
to the project. Also, because the types of land uses would be similar and subject to the
site and architectural design review, impacts to aesthetics would also be similar.
Impacts to Public Services, Utilities, & Service Systems, would generally be similar as
this alternative would be developing urban uses, similar to that proposed; with both
needing infrastructure to service the site, as well as police, fire, and emergency services.
Because the number people living on the project site would be less, impacts to population
6
and housing would be reduced, however, impacts would not be significant for this
alternative, similar to the project. This alternative would generate considerably more daily
and PM peak hour vehicle trips than the project. These greater vehicle trips would lead
to greater operational impacts on traffic, air quality and noise from this alternative than
the project.
Finding: The City Council considered the Existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Alternative and declines to adopt it because it will not avoid or substantially
lessen the Project’s significant impacts, including its significant unavoidable impacts
related to transportation and air quality. The project would obtain most of the basic Project
objectives; however, the Applicant has stated that the 261 residential units under this
Alternative is insufficient to support 902,563 square feet of commercial uses. Therefore,
this Alternative is unable to achieve the project objective to provide a mix of residential
and commercial uses that achieves a financially feasible project.
Alternative 3: Commercial Development Task Force Alternative – DEIR Section
19.6
The Commercial Development Task Force Alternative is derived from recommendations
made by the City of Dublin Commercial Development Task Force (CDTF), as documented
in their Final Summary of Key Recommendations Report, July 2014. The CDTF was
created by the Dublin City Council in March 2014 to examine the potential for additional
commercial development throughout Dublin. City staff identified five “opportunity sites”
that were the key focus of the CDTF, namely: 1) Downtown Dublin; 2) The Green at Park
Place; 3) Dublin Land Company (the project site); 4) The Promenade/Grafton Plaza; and
5) the Chen property.
This alternative assumes the development of office use south of Dublin Boulevard. This
23-acre area would be developed at a 0.3 floor-area-ratio (FAR) for a total of 300,564
square feet. The land uses north of Dublin Boulevard would remain the same as the
project. This alternative would result in a reduction of 69,436 sf. of commercial land use.
The number of residential units (665) would be the same as the proposed project. The
mixed of dwelling units and residential density of this alternative would be the same as
the project.
Because the entirety of the project site is assumed to be disturbed, impacts to Cultural &
Tribal Resources, Geology & Soils, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Hydrology & Water
Quality, and construction related Air Quality/GHG Emissions and Noise would be similar
to the project. Also, because the types of land uses would be similar and subject to the
site and architectural design review, impacts to aesthetics would also be similar.
Impacts to Public Services, Utilities, & Service Systems, would generally be similar as
this alternative would be developing urban uses, similar to that pro posed; with both
needing infrastructure to service the site, as well as police, fire, and emergency services.
Because there would be no change in the number people living on the project site,
impacts to population and housing would be similar to the projec t.
This Alternative would generate considerably less trips as compared to the project.
Because this Alternative would result in fewer traffic trips, operational impacts to air
7
quality would be less, but would still remain significant and unavoidable. The reduced
number of traffic trips would correspond to less operational noise impacts as well.
Finding: The City Council considered the Commercial Task Force Alternative and
declines to adopt it because it will not avoid or substantially les sen the Project’s significant
impacts, including its significant and unavoidable impacts. This Alternative would attain
most of the basic Project objectives to the same degree as the proposed Projec t.
However, with the use of PA-1 as office, it would fully not attain the Project objective
regarding the addition of commercial, entertainment, and hotel uses that will have a
synergy with existing retail in the City. According to a memorandum dated November 12,
2018 from Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., as a result of current market conditions,
new office development in the Tri-Valley is limited to build-to-suite developments. A tenant
has not been identified for this property. In addition, the office space absorption in Dublin
has been relatively low which does not support the construction of new speculative office
development in the City. The operational impacts to air quality would be less; however,
they would still remain significant and unavoidable.
FINDINGS REGARDING INFEASIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES
There are certain additional mitigation measures and/or modifications to the measures
described in the Draft EIR that may lessen significant and unavoidable transportation
impacts identified in the Draft EIR. The City carefully considered the proposed additional
mitigations, and finds the proposed mitigations infeasible, or otherwise rejects the
suggested mitigation, as further described below.
In considering specific additional mitigation measures, the City is guided by CEQA’s legal
standard to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental effects to the extent
feasible. The mitigation measures recommended in the Project EIR represent the
professional judgment and experience of the City’s expert staff and enviro nmental
consultants. The City therefore believes that these recommendations should not be
modified unless necessary to comply with CEQA legal standards. Thus, in considering
changes or additions to the mitigation measures, the City, in determining whethe r to
accept such modifications, either in whole or in part, has considered the following factors,
among others: 1) whether the suggestion relates to a significant and unavoidable
environmental effect of the Project, or instead relates to an effect that can already be
mitigated to less than significant levels by mitigation measures identified in the EIR; 2)
whether the suggested mitigation represents a clear improvement, from an environmental
standpoint, over the EIR mitigation that it would replace; 3) whet her the suggested
mitigation is sufficiently clear as to be easily understood by those who will implement the
mitigation as finally adopted; 4) whether the suggested language might be too inflexible
to allow for pragmatic implementation; 5) whether the suggestions are “feasible” as
defined under CEQA including being able to be accomplished in a successful manner in
a reasonable period of time taking into account economic, environmental, technical, legal,
social or other factors; and 6) whether the proposed mitigation is consistent with the
Project objectives.
The EIR found four intersection locations, two ramp metering locations, roadway
segments, and freeway segments that could not be mitigated because physical
8
improvements needed to address impacts were found to be infeasible. These locations
include:
Roadway Segments on Eastbound Dublin Boulevard
To help mitigate the roadway segment impacts on eastbound Dublin Boul evard, one
mitigation considered would be to construct up to two additional lanes (up to five in each
direction) to increase the capacity of the roadway by 800 vehicles per hour per lane and
therefore reduce the volume to capacity ratio. This improvement would require the
acquisition of a substantial amount of new right-of way and is contradictory to the City’s
Complete Streets Policy, and therefore was not considered feasible, and therefore was
eliminated from further consideration.
Intersection of El Charro Road / Jack London Boulevard
Optimizing the signal timing splits by adjusting the maximum green time for each
movement to better match the vehicle demand for that particular movement. The primary
change would be to increase the split for the eastbound left turn movement due to the
high eastbound left turn traffic volumes. However, since the intersection is located in the
City of Pleasanton and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee implementation of the
mitigation measure, the impacts remains significant and unavoidable.
Intersection of Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps
The improvements would extend the southbound left turn pocket by 25 feet from 405 feet
to 430 feet. The increase in the turn pocket storage of 25 feet would mitigate the project’s
increase in the queue by 25 feet. However, since the intersection is located in the City of
Pleasanton and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee implementation of the mitigation
measure, the impacts remains significant and unavoidable.
Intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard
This intersection is projected to already be over capacity under the Near -Term without
Project and there are no feasible improvements to increase vehicle capacity. The
intersection already includes triple left turns in the westbound and northbound direction,
which are the critical turning movements. It is not feasible to add a fourth turn lane in the
westbound and northbound directions, as it would trigger not only space for the additional
turn lanes but also for the receiving lanes. The impact to surrounding land uses to
accommodate these additional lanes will make this alternative infeasible. Additionally,
these lane additions are contradictory to the City’s Complete Streets Policy. Furthermore,
it is not feasible to extend the signal timing cycle length, since it is at 200 seconds in the
Near-Term (2025) conditions, and consequently, it is not possible to further coordinate
signal timing with adjacent traffic signals. Given these conditions, physical improvements
to the intersection was found to be infeasible and therefore project impacts to the
intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard under the Near-Term + Project
condition would remain significant and unavoidable.
Intersection of Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard
The improvements shall consist of optimizing the coordination of the traffic signals along
Santa Rita Road by increasing the cycle length from 105 second s to 145 seconds. The
intersection is located in the City of Pleasanton and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee
implementation of the mitigation, the impact remains significant and unavoidable .
9
Ramp metering at the WB I-580 at Tassajara Road diagonal on-ramp and at the EB
I-580 at El Charro Road loop on-ramp
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay for the City of
Dublin to work with Caltrans to review the ramp metering rates at the WB I -580 at
Tassajara Road diagonal on-ramp in the AM peak period. Increasing the ramp metering
rate would reduce the vehicle queues on Tassajara Road. In addition, the project
applicant shall pay for the City of Dublin to work with Caltrans to review the ramp meterin g
rates at the EB I-580 at El Charro Road loop on-ramp in the PM peak period. Increasing
the ramp metering rate would reduce the vehicle queues on El Charro Road. However,
since the City of Dublin does not have control over ramp metering rates at this loca tion,
the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
In addition, the EIR found the project impacts to regional infrastructure could not be
mitigated because physical improvements needed to address impacts were found to be
infeasible. These locations include:
Freeway Segments on I-580
To help mitigate the freeway segment impacts on I-580, regional improvements will be
needed. These regional improvements are included in the Countywide Transportation
Plan and the Plan Bay Area. The Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fund would
provide some seed money for regional funding for these improvements to improve the
freeway operations on these segments. Projects from this fund may include the second
phase of I-680/I-580 interchange improvements, widening of State Route 84 through
Pigeon Pass, and other planned roadway system modifications that would relieve freeway
congestion in the study area. However, as the construction timing of these improvements
is unknown as full funding has not been identified, this impact would remain significant
and unavoidable.
EXHIBIT E
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of the City of
Dublin makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The City Council has balanced the benefits of the At Dublin project (“Project”) to the City
of Dublin against the significant adverse impacts identified in the Environmental Impact
Report (“EIR”) that cannot be reduced to less than significant through feasible mitigations
or alternatives and would remain significant and unavoidable.. Pursuant to section 15093,
the City Council hereby determines that the benefits of the Project outweigh the adverse
impacts and the Project should be approved.
The City Council has carefully considered each impact in reaching its decision to approve
the Project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that implementation of the
Project carries with it unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects as identified
in the EIR. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent the identified significant
adverse impacts for the Project have not been reduced to acceptable levels through
feasible mitigation or alternatives, there are specific economic, social, land use and other
considerations that support approval of the Project.
2. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. The following unavoidable significant
environmental impacts are associated with the Project as identified in the EIR
• Air Quality. The project would cause construction impacts associated with the
release of nitrogen oxides (NOx) that would exceed BAAQMD significance
thresholds. Despite implementation of MM AQ-2.2, construction-related NOx
emissions would remain significant and unavoidable. The project would also cause
operational impacts associated with the release of reactive organic gases (ROG)
and NOx that would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds. Despite
implementation of MM AQ-2.4, operational emissions from ROG and NOx would
remain significant and unavoidable. These impacts would occur through
cumulative conditions.
• Near-Term + Project Traffic Conditions. The project would increase the critical
delay movement by more than six (6) seconds to the intersection of Tassajara
Road / Dublin Boulevard (#14). This intersection would also experience an
increase in queuing due to the project of more than 25 feet during the weekday
AM and PM peak periods and the weekend peak period. This intersection was
determined to be over capacity with no feasible mitigation available. Therefore, the
residual significance is significant and unavoidable.
In addition, there is a LOS impact at the intersection of Santa Rita Road / Las
Positas Boulevard (Int #18). The project adds 278 trips in the PM peak hour to an
already deficient intersection. Mitigation Measure TR-5.1 would improve the
operations to an acceptable LOS, however since this intersection is located in the
2
City of Pleasanton, the City of Dublin cannot guarantee the implementation of the
mitigation and therefore it remains significant and unavoidable.
In addition, there is a LOS impact at the intersection of El Charro Road / Stoneridge
Drive / Jack London Boulevard (Int #29). The project adds 70 trips in the PM peak
hour to an already deficient intersection. Mitigation Measure TR-2.1 would improve
the operations to an acceptable LOS, however since this intersection is located in
the City of Livermore, the City of Dublin cannot guarantee the implementation of
the mitigation and therefore it remains significant and unavoidable.
• Cumulative + Project Traffic Conditions. The project would contribute new trips
to facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels; namely, Tassajara Road /
Dublin Boulevard (#14), Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard (#18), El Charro
Road / Jack London Boulevard (#29), Project Driveway / Dublin Boulevard (#35).
All feasible mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate impacts to levels better
than without project conditions; except for the intersection of Tassajara Road /
Dublin Boulevard (#14). No feasible mitigation is available for this intersection,
similar to the Near-term + Project conditions. In addition, Intersections #18 and
#29 are located outside of the City of Dublin, and therefore the implementation of
the mitigations cannot be guaranteed.
• Arterials. The project would contribute new trips to the already congested study
roadway segments along Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard. These arterials
are already over capacity in the future conditions and operate at LOS F based on
average travel speeds from the SimTraffic analysis. Since there are no feasible
mitigations to improve the average travel speeds to LOS D or better, the residual
significance is significant and unavoidable.
• Freeways. The project would contribute new trips to the already congested project
study freeway segments from Dougherty Road to Airway Boulevard on I-580.
These segments are already over capacity and should be operating at LOS F
volumes for the westbound direction in the AM peak hour and the volumes for the
eastbound direction in the PM peak hour are constrained by downstream
bottlenecks. While the project would be required to pay their proportional share of
traffic impact fees, these freeway segments will continue to operate in an over
capacity manner. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and
unavoidable.
• Ramp Metering. The project would contribute new trips to the Hacienda Drive loop
on- ramp to EB I-580 in the PM peak, to the Tassajara Road diagonal on -ramp to
WB I-580 in the AM peak, and to the El Charro Road loop on -ramp to EB I-580 in
the PM peak. Each of these on-ramps have queues that exceed the on-ramp
storage and extend onto the arterial with project traffic added. While the project
would be required to pay their proportional share of traffic impact fees, the
improvements cannot be guaranteed since it is under Caltrans jurisdiction.
Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable.
3
• Congestion Management Program. The project would contribute new trips to
Congestion Management Program facilities that would operate at unacceptable
levels (freeways and major arterials). All feasible mitigation measures are
proposed to mitigate impacts; however, in certain cases, they would not fully
mitigate the impact to a level of less than significant. In other cases, no feasible
mitigation is available. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and
unavoidable.
The EDSP EIR also included the impacts identified above as significant and unavoidable
as follows:
• Air Quality. Project development as a result of dust deposition, construction
equipment emissions, mobile source emissions of ROf and NOx, and stationary
source emissions. (Impacts 3.11/A, B, C, E)
• Traffic and Circulation. I-580 (Impact 3.3/B, E), intersection of Santa Rita Road
and I-580 EB Ramps (Impact 3.3/I), and the intersections of Dublin Boulevard and
Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road (Impact 3.3/M)
4. Overriding Considerations.
The City Council has carefully considered each impact in reaching its decision to approve
the At Dublin project. The City Council now balances those unavoidable impacts against
the Project’s benefits, and hereby determines that the unavoidable impacts are
outweighed by the benefits of the Project as further set forth below. Any one of these
benefits is sufficient to justify approval of the Project. The substantial evidence supporting
the various benefits can be found in the record as a whole.
• The Project will result in economic and community benefits to the City. The
Development Agreement terms provide revenue to the City through its provisions
on the phasing of the Project to require the development of the commercial areas
before the residential areas. The development of the commercial site will generate
sales and property tax revenue to the City as described in the Keyser Marston
Fiscal Analysis dated October 2018. In addition, The Development Agreement
requires the developer to contribute a sum of $7,000,000 to the City as a
community benefit that can be spent at the City Council’s discretion.
• The Project will further the goals of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan by
providing two public parks, a Neighborhood Square and a Community Building,
together totaling 2.33 acres. The 2.23-acre public park adds to the City’s park
network as a “Neighborhood Square” as defined in the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan. The project includes a community center/event space consists of
approximately 3,000 square feet of indoor space and 1,500 square feet of outdoor
space. The Community Building, as specified in the Development Agreement, shall
serve as event space and for City programming and will contribute to the City’s
effort to add additional community space as defined in the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan.
4
• The Project will further the goals and policies of the Housing Element of the
General Plan by providing a wide range of affordable housing. The Development
Agreement provides for an “alternative method of compliance” to comply with the
City’s inclusionary housing requirement. The compliance is met though the
construction of 46 moderate income units in the proposed apartment building and
the acquisition of 1.33-acre parcel at 6543 Regional Street (APN: 941-150-25) from
City and dedicating the parcel to a non-profit affordable housing developer to meet
the low and very low income unit categories.
• The Project will further the General Plan objective of providing a broad range of
non-residential uses, including retail commercial, in Eastern Dublin. The project is
consistent with Guiding Policy 2.2.4, which encourages “development of a full
range of commercial and employment-generating uses in the Eastern Extended
Planning Area that will meet the needs of the City and the surrounding Tri -Valley
area." This Project provides a much needed retail center convenient to existing
and planned future residential uses.
• The Project furthers the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan goal to provide for a balanced
mixed use community by establishing “an attractive and vital community that
provides a balanced and fully integrated range of residential, commercial,
employment, recreational, and social opportunities." (Section 4.3.2, p. 32). The
project also furthers the Specific Plan goal for commercial land use, to serve "the
shopping, entertainment and service needs of Dublin and the surrounding area."
(Section 4.5, p. 36). The Project helps the City achieve these goals by providing
a variety of commercial, employment, residential and social opportunities in a
mixed-use setting. The Project also meets Specific Plan Policy 4-12 to
"concentrate regionally oriented commercial uses south of Dublin Boule vard and
near freeway interchanges where convenient vehicular access will limit traffic
impacts on the rest of eastern Dublin."
• The proximity of the Project site to the Interstate 580 and Tassajara Road
interchange is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
goals and policies and facilitates efficient transportation. The Project will provide
a "destination retail" experience on a visually prominent site accessible from major
regional transit and traffic corridors. The site will be developed in a landscaped
and "pedestrian-friendly" fashion, with a mix of residential, restaurants and retail
services all connected through an central pedestrian spine. The variety of housing
types, commercial uses and public spaces provide a new mixed use and social
retail experience with a range of retail and restaurant opportunities available to
current and future residents of Dublin.
For all of the above reasons, the benefits of the At Dublin project outweigh its significant
unavoidable environmental impacts.
11/9/2018
At Dublin
Mitigation or Monitoring Reporting Program | November 2018
11/9/2018
At Dublin
Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Date November 2018
Project Name At Dublin
Project Location The 77.3-acre project site is generally bound by Tassajara Road, Interstate
580, Brannigan Street and Gleason Drive, in the City of Dublin, CA.
Project Applicant Shea Properties, in partnership with SCS Development Company
State
Clearinghouse
Number
2018012027
Contact Amy Million
Principal Planner
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Phone: 925/833-6610
amy.million@dublin.ca.gov
11/9/2018
Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all public agencies establish
monitoring and/or reporting procedures for mitigation measures (MMs) adopted as part of the
project approval to mitigate or avoid significant project impacts.
The MMRP identifies the following for each MM:
Timing. In each case, a timeframe for performance of the mitigation measure, or review of
evidence that mitigation has taken place, is provided. The measures are designed to ensure that
impact-related components of Project implementation do not proceed without establishing
that the mitigation is implemented or assured. All activities are subject to the approval of all
required permits from local, State, and federal agencies with permitting authority over the
specific activity.
Responsible Party or Designated Representative. In each case, unless otherwise indicated, the
applicant is the Responsible Party for implementing the mitigation. The City or a Designated
Representative will also monitor the performance and implementation of the mitigation
measures. To guarantee that the mitigation measure will not be inadvertently overlooked, a
supervising public official acting as the Designated Representative is the official who grants the
permit or authorization called for in the performance. Where more than one official is identified,
permits or authorization from all officials shall be required.
The numbering system corresponds with the numbering system used in the Final EIR. The last
column of the MMRP table will be used by the parties responsible for documenting when
implementation of the MM has been completed. The ongoing documentation and monitoring of
mitigation compliance will be completed by the City of Dublin. The completed MMRP will be kept
on file at the City of Dublin Community Development Department.
City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 3
11/9/2018
Timing Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
Aesthetics
Prior to issuance
of building permit
MM AES-4.1: Exterior Lighting Control Plan
To minimize the adverse impact associated with light and glare, the applicant
shall submit an exterior lighting control plan for review and approval by the
Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit for
vertical construction for building lighting or approval of the final landscape plan
for all other site lighting.
The exterior lighting control plan shall address the design and install all
permanent exterior lighting and all temporary construction lighting such that:
(a) lamps and reflectors are not directly visible from beyond the project site, as
feasible; (b) lighting does not cause excessive reflected glare; (c) direct lighting
does not illuminate the nighttime sky; (d) illumination of the project and its
immediate vicinity is minimized; and (e) the lighting mitigation plan complies
with all relevant local policies and ordinances.
The exterior lighting control plan shall include the following:
▪ A photometric study that demonstrates spillover horizontal foot-candle
(fc) levels do not exceed 1.0 fc at the project site boundary.
▪ Identification of the location and direction of light fixtures that take the
lighting control requirements into account;
▪ Lighting design that considers setbacks of project features from the site
boundary to aid in satisfying the lighting control requirements;
▪ City of Dublin
City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 4
11/9/2018
Timing Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
▪ Lighting design that incorporates fixture hoods/shielding, with light
directed downward or toward the area to be illuminated;
▪ Light fixtures that are visible from beyond the project boundary shall
have cutoff angles that are sufficient to prevent lamps and reflectors
from being visible beyond the project boundary, except where
necessary for security;
▪ Lighting figures that are a minimum necessary brightness, consistent
with operational safety and security; and
▪ Where lights in high illumination areas not occupied on a continuous
basis, utilize timer switches or motion detectors so that the lights
operate only when the area is occupied.
Air Quality
During
construction
MM AQ-2.1: BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures
During construction, the following BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation
Measures air pollution control measures shall be implemented:
▪ All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded
areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
▪ All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site
shall be covered.
▪ All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be
removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per
day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
▪ City of Dublin
▪ Bay Area Air
Quality Control
Board
City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 5
11/9/2018
Timing Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
▪ All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
▪ All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed
as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after
grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
▪ Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when
not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as
required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13,
Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage
shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
▪ All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in
accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be
checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper
condition prior to operation.
▪ Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to
contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall
respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s
phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable
regulations.
Prior to issuance
of grading permit
MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction Equipment
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit
documentation to the City of Dublin that demonstrate that all off-road diesel-
powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meets United
▪ City of Dublin
City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 6
11/9/2018
Timing Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 Final off-road emissions
standards.
Prior to issuance
of building permit
MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating
The applicant shall require by contract specifications that the interior
architectural coating (paint and primer) products used would have a volatile
organic compound rating of 20 grams per liter or less while exterior
architectural coating must be less than 100 grams per liter. Contract
specifications shall be included in the construction documents for the project,
which shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin.
▪ City of Dublin
Prior to issuance
of building permit
MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces
The installation of wood-burning devices shall be prohibited within the
development per Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regulation 6, Rule
3. The purpose of this rule is to limit emissions of particulate matter and visible
emissions from wood-burning devices used for primary heat, supplemental heat
or ambiance. This prohibition shall be noted on the deed for future property
owners to obey. Natural gas fireplaces are acceptable.
▪ City of Dublin
Biological Resources
Prior to issuance
of grading,
building or other
development
permit
MM BIO-1.1: Special-Status Plants Avoidance and Mitigation
Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for
development activities involving ground disturbance, the project applicant shall
prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development
Department that demonstrates compliance with the following:
▪ City of Dublin
▪ CA Dept. of Fish
& Wildlife
City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 7
11/9/2018
Timing Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
Prior to any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities, a focused
survey shall be conducted to determine the presence of Congdon’s tarplant or
other special-status species with potential to occur within the project area.
Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the Protocols for Surveying and
Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural
Communities (CDFG 2009). These guidelines require rare plant surveys to be
conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both
“evident” and identifiable. Field surveys shall be scheduled to coincide with
known blooming periods, and/or during periods of physiological development
that are necessary to identify the plant species of concern. If no special-status
plant species are found, then the project will not have any impacts to the
species and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. If any of the
species are found on-site and cannot be avoided, the following measures shall
be required:
1. If the survey determines that Congdon’s tarplant or other special-status
species are present within or adjacent to the project site, direct and
indirect impacts of the project on the species shall be avoided where
feasible through the establishment of activity exclusion zones, where no
ground-disturbing activities shall take place, including construction of
new facilities, construction staging, or other temporary work areas.
Activity exclusion zones for special-status plant species shall be
established prior to construction activities around each occupied habitat
site, the boundaries of which shall be clearly marked with standard
orange plastic construction exclusion fencing or its equivalent. The
establishment of activity exclusion zones shall not be required if no
construction-related disturbances would occur within 250 feet of the
occupied habitat site. The size of activity exclusion zones may be
City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 8
11/9/2018
Timing Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
reduced through consultation with a qualified biologist and with
concurrence from CDFW based on site-specific conditions.
2. If exclusion zones and avoidance of impacts on Congdon’s tarplant or
other special-status species within the project area are not feasible,
then the loss of individuals or occupied habitat of special-status plants
shall be compensated for through the acquisition, protection, and
subsequent management of other existing occurrences. Before the
implementation of compensation measures, the project’s applicant shall
provide detailed information to the CDFW and lead agency on the
quality of preserved habitat, location of the preserved occurrences,
provisions for protecting and managing the areas, the responsible
parties involved, and other pertinent information that demonstrates
that the compensation population will be properly preserved and
managed. A mitigation plan identifying appropriate mitigation ratios at a
minimum ratio of 1:1 [one preserved acre for each impacted arce] to
ensure no net loss of acreage shall be developed in consultation with
the CDFW and approved by the City prior to the commencement of any
activities that would impact Congdon’s tarplant or other species with
potential to occur within the project area. A mitigation plan may include
but is not limited to the following: the acquisition of off-site mitigation
areas presently supporting the Congdon’s tarplant or other special-
status species, purchase of credits in a mitigation bank that is approved
to sell credits for special-status plants, or payment of in-lieu fees to a
public agency or conservation organization (e.g., a local land trust) for
the preservation and management of existing populations of special-
status plants.
City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 9
11/9/2018
Timing Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
Prior to issuance
of grading,
building or other
development
permit
MM BIO-1.2: Burrowing Owl Avoidance, Exclusion and Required Measures
Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for
development activities involving ground disturbance, the project applicant shall
prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development
Department that demonstrates compliance with the following:
Mitigate for Loss of Burrowing Owl Habitat
The majority of project site, with the exception of delineated wetlands,
developed areas, and areas with tree cover (73.64 acres), has been determined
to potentially provide habitat or foraging areas for burrowing owl. Therefore,
the applicant shall implement compensatory mitigation for loss of owl habitat in
accordance with the standards set forth in the Required Mitigation Plan section
below.
Additional measures below will avoid direct impacts to individuals that may
occupy the site during construction and implementation of the project.
Conduct a Burrowing Owl Survey
Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall retain a
qualified biologist to conduct two pre-construction surveys for the Western
burrowing owl on the project site.
The first survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to ground-
disturbing activities and the second survey within 48 hours of initial ground
disturbance. The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the 2012
▪ City of Dublin
▪ CA Dept. of Fish
& Wildlife
City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 10
11/9/2018
Timing Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the surveys determine owls
are present, then the measures set forth below shall be followed.
Implement Avoidance Measures
If direct impacts to owls can be avoided, prior to the first ground-disturbing
activities, the project applicant shall implement the following avoidance
measures during all phases of construction to reduce or eliminate potential
impacts to California burrowing owls.
▪ A pre-construction survey shall be performed prior to start of ground
disturbance activities. This survey will occur regardless of the time of
year, as burrowing owls may use the project site during the non-nesting
season. The survey shall be performed according to the standards set
forth by the Staff Report for Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012).
▪ The project site should be managed to prevent burrowing owl from
occupying the site prior to any project activities
▪ All suitable burrows should be closed by hand once it has been
determined that the burrow is unoccupied.
▪ Maintenance of the property to ensure burrows are not rebuilt will be
necessary throughout the year to preclude the presence of burrowing
owl and suitable burrowing owl habitat. Maintenance should occur
approximately every 8 weeks, and burrows should be inspected prior to
closure to ensure no burrowing owl are present. The frequency of
burrow closure may be adjusted based upon ground squirrel and burrow
reestablishment progress.
City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 11
11/9/2018
Timing Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
▪ The debris within the project site should be removed.
▪ If discing is chosen as a preferred method for burrow maintenance, it is
recommended that any sensitive biological resources (populations of
rare plants, wetland boundaries and any active bird nests, etc.) be
flagged by a qualified biologist and avoided.
Conduct Burrow Exclusion
If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible, prior to the first
ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant, in consultation with the
CDFW, shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan as indicated and
following the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
Monitoring of the excluded owls shall be carried out as per the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife 2012 Staff Report.
Required Mitigation Plan
The project applicant shall consult with the CDFW and develop a detailed
mitigation plan that shall include replacement of impacted habitat, number of
burrows, and burrowing owl at a ratio approved by CDFW to ensure no net loss
of species. The mitigation plan shall comply with the requirements set forth in
Appendix A of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and
the plan shall be reviewed and approved by CDFW and the City prior to the first
ground-disturbing activities.
Prior to issuance
of grading,
building or other
MM BIO-1.3: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures
Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for
development activities from February 1 to August 31, the applicant shall
prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development
▪ City of Dublin
City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 12
11/9/2018
Timing Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
development
permit
Department that demonstrates compliance with the following:
Pre-construction Breeding Bird Surveys
No more than 14 days prior to initial ground disturbance and vegetation
removal during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), the project
applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to perform pre-construction breeding
bird surveys. If any nests are found, they shall be flagged and protected with a
suitable buffer based on the species. Buffer distance may vary based on species
and conditions, but is typically at least 50 feet, and up to 250 feet for raptors.
As used in this measure, “suitable” means the distance a qualified biologist
determines is necessary to ensure no disturbance to nesting. The buffer
distance is measured as the straight-line distance between an active nest and
the activity, taking both horizontal and vertical distance into account. This
mitigation measure does not apply to ground disturbance and vegetation
removal activities that occur outside of the nesting season (September 1 to
January 31).
Prior to issuance
of grading,
building or other
development
permit
MM BIO-3.1 Wetland Mitigation Plan
Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for
development activities involving ground disturbance, the project applicant shall
prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development
Department that demonstrates compliance with the following:
The project applicant shall the acquire the appropriate applicable permit(s) (e.g.
Section 404, Section 401, Porter-Cologne) from the respective regulating
agency(s) (i.e. USACE and/or RWQCB). A wetland mitigation plan shall be
prepared that will establish suitable compensatory mitigation based on the
▪ City of Dublin
▪ US Army Corps
of Engineers
▪ Regional Water
Quality Control
Board
City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 13
11/9/2018
Timing Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
concept of no net loss of wetland habitat values or acreages, to the satisfaction
of the regulatory agencies.
The wetland mitigation plan shall include measures for avoidance, minimization
and compensation for wetland impacts. Avoidance and minimization measures
may include the designation of buffers around wetland features to be avoided
or project design measures. Compensation measures shall include the
preservation and/or creation of wetlands or other waters. The final mitigation
ratio (the amount of wetlands and other water created or preserved compared
to the amount impacted) shall be determined by the applicable resource
agency(s) and result in no net loss of wetland habitat value or acreages. The
wetland mitigation plan shall include the following:
1. Description of wetland types and their expected functions and values;
2. Performance standards and monitoring protocol to ensure the success
of the mitigation wetlands over a period of time to be determined by
the resource agencies;
3. Engineering plans showing the location, size and configuration of
wetlands to be created or preserved;
4. An implementation schedule showing the construction or preservation
of mitigation areas shall commence prior to or concurrently with the
initiation of construction; and
5. A description of legal protection of the preserved wetlands (such as
dedication of fee title, conservation easement and/or an endowment
held by an approved conservation organization, government agency or
mitigation bank).
City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 14
11/9/2018
Timing Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources
During
construction
MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological Discovery During Construction
If buried historic or archaeological resources are discovered during
construction, operations shall stop within 50 feet of the find and a qualified
archaeologist shall be consulted to evaluate the resource in accordance with
CEQA Guidelines 15064.5. The applicant shall include a standard inadvertent
discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this
requirement. If the resource does not qualify as a significant resource, then no
further protection or study is necessary. If the resource does qualify as a
significant resource then the impacts shall be avoided by project activities. If
the resource cannot be avoided, adverse impacts to the resource shall be
addressed. The archaeologist shall make recommendations concerning
appropriate mitigation measures that shall be implemented to protect the
resources, including but not limited to excavation and evaluation of the finds in
accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Any previously
undiscovered resources found during construction within the project area
should be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR)
523 forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria.
▪ City of Dublin
During
construction
MM CR-2.1: Paleontological Resource Monitoring
In the event a fossil(s) is discovered during construction for the project,
excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or delayed
until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards.
▪ City of Dublin
City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 15
11/9/2018
Timing Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
The applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every
construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the
paleontological resources are found to be significant, they shall be avoided by
project construction activities and recovered by a qualified paleontologist.
Upon completion of the recovery, a paleontological assessment shall be
conducted by a qualified paleontologist to determine if further monitoring for
paleontological resources is required. The assessment shall include (1) the
results of any geotechnical investigation prepared for the project area, (2)
specific details of the construction plans for the project area, (3) background
research, and (4) limited subsurface investigation within the project area.
If a high potential to encounter paleontological resources is confirmed, a
monitoring plan of further project subsurface construction shall be prepared in
conjunction with this assessment. After project subsurface construction has
ended, a report documenting monitoring, methods, findings, and further
recommendations regarding paleontological resources shall be prepared and
submitted to the Director of Community Development.
Geology and Soils
Prior to issuance
of building permit
MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration
Recommendations
The project applicant shall consult with a registered geotechnical engineer to
prepare a design-level geotechnical investigation that incorporates the
recommendations in the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration. The design-
level geotechnical report shall address, but not be limited to, site preparation
and grading, building foundations, and CBC seismic design parameters. A
design-level geotechnical report shall be prepared and submitted in conjunction
▪ City of Dublin
City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 16
11/9/2018
Timing Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
with Building Permit application(s) and reviewed and approved by the City of
Dublin. Recommendations from the design-level geotechnical report shall be
incorporated into the final project design and construction documents for each
phase of the project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Prior to issuance
of grading,
building or any
other
development
permit for
Planning Area 3
MM HAZ- 1.1: Disposal of Deleterious Materials
Prior to any ground disturbance on Planning Area 3 (APN 985-52-24), the
project applicant shall retain a qualified hazardous materials contractor to
properly dispose of the observed deleterious materials, and any others
discovered during remediation. Additionally, the applicant shall close the
abandoned Zone 7 water supply well in accordance with applicable regulatory
agency requirements.
▪ City of Dublin
▪ Dublin San
Ramon Services
District
Noise and Vibration
Prior to issuance
of grading,
building or any
other
development
permit
MM N-1.1: Construction Noise Reduction
To reduce the effects of construction noise, the City of Dublin shall ensure that
the project applicants include the following on all construction contracts for the
project:
▪ The project shall submit a Construction Noise Management Program
that identifies measures proposed to minimize construction noise
impacts on existing residents.
▪ All construction operations shall comply with local noise standards and
be limited to normal daylight hours. All stationary equipment shall be
adequately muffled and located away from sensitive receptors. The
▪ City of Dublin
City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 17
11/9/2018
Timing Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
construction contractor shall limit all on-site noise-producing
construction activities, including deliveries and warming up of
equipment, to the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., daily.
▪ The construction contractor shall ensure that all internal combustion
engine- driven equipment is equipped with mufflers that are in good
condition and appropriate for the equipment.
▪ The construction contractor shall locate stationary noise-generating
equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive
receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area. In addition, the
project contractor shall place such stationary construction equipment so
that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the
project site.
▪ The construction contractor shall prohibit unnecessary idling of internal
combustion engines.
▪ The construction contractor shall, to the maximum extent practical,
locate on-site equipment staging areas so as to maximize the distance
between construction- related noise sources and noise-sensitive
receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.
City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 18
11/9/2018
Timing Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
The construction contractor shall designate a noise disturbance coordinator
who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about
construction noise. When a complaint is received, the disturbance coordinator
shall notify the City within 24 hours of the complaint and determine the cause
of the noise complaints (starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute
reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem, as deemed acceptable
by the City of Dublin Community Development Department. The construction
contractor shall conspicuously post the contact name and telephone number
for the noise disturbance coordinator at the construction site.
Prior to issuance
of building permit
for Planning
Areas 2, 3 and 4
MM N-3.1: Noise Attenuation
Prior to issuance of building permits for Planning Areas 2, 3, and 4, a detailed
acoustical study based on architectural plans shall be prepared by a qualified
acoustical consultant and submitted to the Community Development
Department to demonstrate that all residential units would meet the City’s 60
dBA exterior noise standard for all patios, balconies, and common outdoor
living areas. In addition, the acoustical study shall demonstrate that interior
noise levels at all residential units at the project site would meet the City’s 45
dBA threshold. This mitigation measure complies with the applicable sections
of the California Building Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations)
and City Implementing Policy H. The necessary noise reduction may be
achieved by implementing noise control measures at the receiver locations.
Where closed windows are required to achieve the interior 45 dBA CNEL limit,
project plans and specifications shall include ventilation as required by the
California Building Code. The final grading and building plans shall incorporate
the required noise barriers (patio enclosure, wall, berm, or combination
▪ City of Dublin
City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 19
11/9/2018
Timing Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
wall/berm), and the property owner/developer shall install these barriers and
enclosures.
Transportation and Traffic
Prior to issuance
of building permit
in Planning Area 1
or 2
MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design Features for the New Project
Intersection on Dublin Boulevard.
Prior to approval of the first building permit for development in Planning Area 1
or 2, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Director that design features have been incorporated into the development
plans that prohibit northbound and southbound left turn movements onto
Dublin Boulevard at the new intersection during the weekday and weekend
time periods (defined below); or alternative improvements have been
incorporated that modify or eliminate the need for the prohibited turn
movements. Time periods are defined as:
▪ Weekday = 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM
▪ Weekday = 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM
▪ Weekend Peak = 10:30 AM to 2:30 PM
Should the City determine that queuing impacts extend beyond these time
periods, the City may modify these time periods accordingly to ensure impacts
remain less than significant.
Design features could include:
▪ City of Dublin
City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 20
11/9/2018
Timing Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
▪ Moveable bollards,
▪ Gated lane control systems,
▪ Raised curbs,
▪ Temporary traffic control devices,
▪ Changeable message signs,
▪ Flashing signal heads,
▪ Modifying the ingress/egress circulation on Brannigan Street and/or
Tassajara Road, and/or
▪ Other means as deemed acceptable by the Public Works Director.
At any such time after full build-out and occupancy of the project, the applicant
may submit additional traffic analysis to the City, that would be independently
verified, demonstrating that the time periods may be adjusted or that the
prohibited turning movements are no longer required, such that impacts are
maintained at a less than significant level, as deemed acceptable by the Public
Works Director.
Prior to issuance
of building permit
MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements to El Charro Road / Stoneridge
Drive / Jack London Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide
the City of Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of
Pleasanton to pay the project’s proportionate fair share (2 percent) for
improvements to the intersection of El Charro Road / Jack London Boulevard.
The improvements shall consist of optimizing the signal timing splits by
adjusting the maximum green time for each movement to better match the
▪ City of Dublin
▪ City of
Pleasanton
City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 21
11/9/2018
Timing Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
vehicle demand for that particular movement. The primary change would be to
increase the split for the eastbound left turn movement due to the high
eastbound left turn traffic volumes.
Prior to issuance
of building permit
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Travel Demand Management (TDM)
Program
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall submit a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to the City of Dublin for
review and approval. The project applicant shall be responsible for fully funding
and implementing the TDM program.
The TDM program shall be prepared by a qualified transportation consultant/
engineer in coordination with the project applicant and City staff. The TDM
program may include but not be limited to the following measures:
▪ Implement a subsidy program that would provide BART tickets at no
cost or subsidized rate to all employees.
▪ Provide a shuttle service between the project site and the East
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station.
▪ Implement a Commuter Tax Benefit Program or equivalent, per
Section 132(F) of federal tax code, where an employer can offer its
employees a monthly subsidy for public transit.
▪ Join City Car Share or similar program as a "Biz Prime" member and
pay for membership of a minimum of 5% employees.
▪ City of Dublin
City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 22
11/9/2018
Timing Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
▪ Provide bicycle parking facilities for 20% of car spaces, or a number
approved by the City.
▪ Provide secured bicycle parking (lockers or cages) for employees.
▪ Partner with local businesses (e.g. Kaiser Medical Center) in the
formation of a Transportation Management Association (TMA)
▪ Facilitate employer‐sponsored carpooling and ride‐matching
programs.
▪ Provide preferential carpool parking.
▪ Implement a guaranteed ride home program.
▪ Provide an on‐site car share program.
▪ Encourage employee flexible work scheduling practices to avoid
peak‐hour travel (flex time, staggered shifts, compressed work
schedules, etc.).
▪ Co-sponsor a transportation fair once a year with At Dublin
businesses. Invite Wheels, 511.org, and at least two other commute
alternative service providers to attend and distribute commute
alternative information. Provide refreshments to participants.
▪ Promote and distribute hard copy information quarterly to all
employees regarding 511, Ridematch, Guaranteed Ride Home
Program, Wheels/LAVTA, shuttles to regional transit, City CarShare
program, and other relevant alternative transportation options.
City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 23
11/9/2018
Timing Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
▪ Distribute information quarterly regarding transportation
alternatives by email to all employees.
▪ Provide a kiosk(s) with brochures, and similar items that provide
information about the TDM program. Create a website with similar
information.
▪ Appoint a Commute Coordinator to facilitate information
dissemination.
The project applicant shall be required to submit a yearly report on/or before
September 30 detailing the current status of the TDM measures, summarizing
the program’s effectiveness, identifying any changes to the TDM measures that
occurred in the previous year, and identifying additional steps to be taken, if
necessary, to reduce traffic impacts. Additional details regarding TDM
monitoring shall be developed as part of the development of the TDM program.
Prior to issuance
of building permit
MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Central
Parkway
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall pay the
project’s proportionate fair share (17%) of improvements to the intersection of
Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway. The improvements shall consist of extending
the westbound left turn pocket by 55 feet from 190 feet to 245 feet. There is
an existing raised median that can be modified to lengthen the turn pocket.
Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the
project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement
costs.
▪ City of Dublin
City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 24
11/9/2018
Timing Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
Prior to issuance
of building permit
MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin
Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the
project’s proportionate fair share (7 percent) of improvements to the
intersection of Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall
consist of adjusting the green time for the westbound left turn movement.
Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the
project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement
costs.
▪ City of Dublin
Prior to issuance
of building permit
MM TR-3.3: Existing + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin
Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the
project’s proportionate fair share (15 percent) of improvements to the
intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall
consist of adjusting the green time for the eastbound left turn movement.
Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the
project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement
costs.
▪ City of Dublin
Prior to issuance
of building permit
MM TR-3.4: Existing + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / EB I-580
Ramps
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide
the City of Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of
Pleasanton to pay the project’s proportionate fair share (16 percent) of
improvements to the intersection of Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps. The
improvements shall consist of extending the southbound left turn pocket by 25
▪ City of Dublin
▪ City of
Pleasanton
City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 25
11/9/2018
Timing Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
feet from 405 feet to 430 feet. There is an existing raised median that can be
modified to lengthen the turn pocket.
Prior to issuance
of building permit
MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / The Shops/
Project Driveway
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the
entirety (100 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive /
Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the green time
for the northbound left turn movement. Because this improvement project is
not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay for the
entirety of the mitigation costs.
▪ City of Dublin
Prior to issuance
of building permit
MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Improvements
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide
the City of Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the Tri-
Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) to pay all applicable regional
transportation impact fees related to freeway improvements.
▪ City of Dublin
▪ Tri-Valley
Transportation
Council
Prior to issuance
of building permit
MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering Improvements
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay for
the City of Dublin to work with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to review the
ramp metering rates at the WB I-580 Tassajara Road diagonal on-ramp in the
AM peak period. Increasing the ramp metering rate would reduce the vehicle
queues on Tassajara Road. In addition, the project applicant shall pay for the
City of Dublin to work with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to review the
ramp metering rates at the EB I-580 El Charro Road loop on-ramp in the PM
▪ City of Dublin
▪ Caltrans
City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 26
11/9/2018
Timing Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
peak period. Increasing the ramp metering rate would reduce the vehicle
queues on El Charro Road.
Prior to issuance
of building permit
MM TR-5.1: Near-Term + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las
Positas Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide
the City of Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of
Pleasanton to pay the project’s proportionate fair share (8 percent) for
improvements to the intersection of Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard.
The improvements shall consist of optimizing the coordination of the traffic
signals along Santa Rita Road by increasing the cycle length from 105 seconds to
115 seconds.
▪ City of Dublin
▪ City of
Pleasanton
Prior to issuance
of building permit
MM TR-6.1: Near-Term + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin
Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the
project’s proportionate fair share (15%) of improvements to the intersection of
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adjusting
the cycle length in the AM peak hour to be 155 seconds and adjusting the green
time for the northbound left turn movement in the PM Peak hour. Because this
improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project
applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs.
▪ City of Dublin
Prior to issuance
of building permit
MM TR-6.2: Near-Term + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard /
Brannigan Street
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the
project’s proportionate fair share (6 percent) of improvements to the
▪ City of Dublin
City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 27
11/9/2018
Timing Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
intersection of Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street. The improvements shall
consist of adjusting the green time for the eastbound left turn movement.
Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the
project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement
costs.
Prior to issuance
of building permit
MM TR-6.3: Near-term + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / The
Shops/ Project Driveway
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the
entirety (100 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive /
Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the cycle length
at this intersection from 110 seconds to 120 seconds. Because this
improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project
applicant shall pay for the entirety of the mitigation costs.
▪ City of Dublin
Prior to issuance
of building permit
MM TR-7.1: Near-Term + Project Ramp Metering Improvements
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay for
the City of Dublin to work with Caltrans to review the ramp metering rates at
the EB I-580 Hacienda Drive loop on-ramp in the PM peak period. Increasing the
ramp metering rate would reduce the vehicle queues on Hacienda Drive.
▪ City of Dublin
Prior to issuance
of building permit
MM TR-8.1: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin
Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the
project’s proportionate fair share (10 percent) of improvements to the
intersection of Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall
consist of optimizing the signal timing splits. Because this improvement project
▪ City of Dublin
City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 28
11/9/2018
Timing Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the
proportionate fair share of the improvement costs.
Prior to issuance
of building permit
MM TR-8.2: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Brannigan Street / Dublin
Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the
project’s proportionate fair share (8 percent) of improvements to the
intersection of Brannigan Street / Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall
consist of adding a second northbound left turn lane of equal length. The south
leg of this intersection will likely need to be widened to fit the additional
northbound left turn lane. Since the western side of Brannigan Street fronts
the project, it is recommended that this improvement be installed as part of the
project to prevent future widening after the project has been constructed.
Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the
project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement
costs.
▪ City of Dublin
Prior to issuance
of building permit
MM TR-8.3: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Fallon Road / Dublin
Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the
project’s proportionate fair share (2 percent) of improvements to the
intersection of Fallon Road / Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist
of installing a westbound right turn overlap phase. Because this improvement
project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay
the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs.
▪ City of Dublin
City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 29
11/9/2018
Timing Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
Prior to issuance
of building permit
MM TR-8.4: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard /
Keegan Street
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the
project’s proportionate fair share (5 percent) of improvements to the
intersection of Dublin Boulevard / Keegan Street. The improvements shall
consist of optimizing the cycle length to 150 seconds. Because this
improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project
applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs.
▪ City of Dublin
Prior to issuance
of building permit
MM TR-8.5: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard /
Lockhart Street
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the
project’s proportionate fair share (4 percent) of improvements to the
intersection of Dublin Boulevard / Lockhart Street. The improvements shall
consist of optimizing the cycle length to 150 seconds. Because this
improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project
applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs.
▪ City of Dublin
Prior to issuance
of building permit
MM TR-8.6: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las
Positas Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide
the City of Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of
Pleasanton to pay the project’s proportionate fair share (8 percent) for
improvements to the intersection of Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard.
The improvements shall consist of optimizing the coordination of the traffic
▪ City of Dublin
▪ City of
Pleasanton
City of Dublin At Dublin: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 30
11/9/2018
Timing Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
signals along Santa Rita Road by increasing the cycle length from 105 seconds to
145 seconds.
Prior to issuance
of building permit
MM TR-9.1: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Grafton
Street
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the
project’s proportionate fair share (5 percent) of improvements to the
intersection of Dublin Boulevard / Grafton Street. The improvements shall
consist of extending the eastbound left turn pocket by 85 feet from 220 feet to
305 feet. There is an existing raised median that can be modified to lengthen
the turn pocket. The improvements shall also consist of extending the
westbound left turn pocket by 140 feet from 230 feet to 305 feet. There is an
existing raised median that can be modified to lengthen the turn pocket.
Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the
project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement
costs.
▪ City of Dublin
1
Amy Million
From:Kumar K <jkiran2020@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 26, 2020 11:28 PM
To:Amy Million
Subject:NO to 'At Dublin project'
Dear Ma'am,
This is regarding At Dublin project, which is on a 76.9-acre vacant site primarily bound by Tassajara Road, Interstate
580, Brannigan Street and Gleason Drive.
I am a home owner in Tassajara Meadows community(located near Gleasan drive and Tassajara Rd). Just to make
a right turn on Tassajara and pass through the traffic in the morning it takes times for me while dropping my kid at
school. The congestion grows as we approach the exit to 580. With the addition of 566 more homes, it is going to be
a real nightmare in the traffic.
So I request you to consider my voice and preference for this project as 'NO' and help with better planning of East
Dublin.
Thank you so much reading.
Regards,
Kiran Kumar J
Tassajara Meadows
Dublin, CA
1
Amy Million
From:dung lay <nadia.phung@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 1, 2020 9:26 PM
To:Amy Million
Subject:No to more homes in Dublin
Hi,
My name is Dung Lay and I’m a resident of Dublin. I will not be able to attend the meeting this Tuesday and I’m emailing
you to oppose building more homes on the 3 lots near Tassajara/Dublin Blvd. Our schools are already crowded enough
and the traffic on our streets have gotten worse which leads to more reckless driving and accidents because parents are
trying to get their kids to school. Please vote No on building more new homes.
Thanks,
Dung Lay
Sent from my iPhone
1
Amy Million
From:Connie M <conzmoon@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, March 2, 2020 11:36 PM
To:Amy Million
Subject:Tassajara Road, Interstate 580, Brannigan Street and Gleason Drive
Hello
Please vote NO on the new project. There are just too much development going on and not enough infrastructure to
meet those new demands. I’m sad to realize how bustling Dublin has become in only 2 years of living here.
Please stop all the developments. Let’s see some land and nature.
Thank you
1
Amy Million
From:Alyssa Woo <alyssacwoo@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 9, 2020 6:33 PM
To:City Council
Cc:Amy Million
Subject:Project: At Dublin - PLPA-2017-00061
Hello Dublin City Council,
My name is Alyssa Woo‐Deaguero, and my husband and I have enjoyed living here and have been residents since
2010. Our condo is located on Clarinbridge Cir., and will be immediately affected by this project. Unfortunately, my
husband and I will not be available to attend the actual meeting in person. I would like to provide my comments
regarding this project.
We are very concerned about the rampant building of residential units around Dublin. We feel that the city is now
incredibly overpopulated and is not as peaceful as it used to be. We'd really prefer to see more parks or retail created
with this plot of land. I recall a few years ago there was a project called the "Promenade" that did not come to
light. We'd prefer something like the Promenade or more park space developed on this land.
The site of the proposed 2nd high school in Dublin is also supposed to be located on the other side of Clarinbridge Cir.,
and we already fear how terribly congested it will be. We are incredibly concerned about how our quality of life will be
reduced by being sandwiched between more housing/congestion on one side and a high school on the other side. Using
the space for retail and parks would be a perfect compliment to the high school, so that the students will have a place to
go and hang out after school (book stores, coffee shops, etc.) and stay out of trouble. We do not need more housing in
this plot of land.
The traffic is also an issue as it has taken us over 35 minutes to drive from one side of the city to the other. If Dublin
Blvd is eventually expanded through Livermore to relieve congestion on 580, I fear Dublin Blvd will be incredibly
congested at all times of the day, especially if Dublin continues to approve housing projects and have a full functioning
high school using Dublin Blvd.
In summary, we would like it be known that more housing in this plot of land is definitely not our preferred choice and
we are directly affected by it in multiple ways. We'd really prefer the land be used for retail or open park space.
Thank you for your consideration.
Alyssa Woo‐Deaguero
925‐548‐4675