Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Enea Plaza PD RezoneCITY CLERK AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 7, 1997 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING Enea PD Rezone (PA96-043) (Report Prepared By: Jeri Ram, Associate Planner)~5-~ EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Resolution approving Negative Declaration Ordinance establishing Planned Development District Resolution approving Planned Development Negative Declaration Site Plan RECOMMENDATION: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Open continued public hearing Receive staff presentation and public testimony Question staff and public Close public hearing and deliberate Adopt Resolution approving Negative Declaration (Exhibit 1) Waive second reading and adopt ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance (Exhibit 2) Adopt Resolution Approving and Establishing Findings and General Provisions for a PD Planned Development Rezoning (Exhibit 3) "":."i, INANCLa, L STATEMENT: No financial impact. DESCRIPTION: St. Michael's Investments is proposing a Planned Development Rezone for an existing retail and office complex. The proposed Planned Development Zoning District (District) xvill update and combine the three existing Planned Development Zoning Districts for the Site. The proposed District includes those uses presently allowed. In addition, it will allow some new permitted uses such as automotive parts sales and related vehicle servicing, and new conditional uses such as hotels and motels. BACKGROUND: In 1987 the Downtown Specific Plan was adopted by the City' Council. As part of the Downtown Specific Plan, a new street was identified as needed for circulation in this area, that would connect Amador Plaza Road with Regional and Golden Gate to improve Downtown circulation. The road alignment for what is presently referred to as the "parallel road" was approved by the City Council in 1988. The road will intersect Enea Plaza and connect to the proposed off- ramp for 1-680. As a result of the construction of the new off-ramps, a portion of Enea Plaza will be demolished and used for the off-ramps. The construction of the Parallel Road through the site will also create new roadway frontage right off the freeway. COPIES TO: St. Michaels Investments In House Distribution ITEM NO. In the summer of 1996, Mr. Enea a~i'. ,ached City staffwith an idea for a hotei( a portion of Enea Plaza, with access from Amador Plaza and the Parallel Road. Additionally, he was interested in putting a large auto parts store with some vehicle servicing on site on the north side of the parallel road adjacent Dublin.Boulevard (near the location of the theatre, which will be removed as part of the construction of the off ramps). The existing Planned Developments did not. address either of these uses. Staff suggested that Mr. Enea consider a new Planned Development Rezone for the entire -.:. site which included the hotel/motel and automotive uses. Additionally, the new Planned Development would have the effect of updating the existing Planned Developments (3 that exist on the site) and consolidating them under one Planned Development. Planning Commission Public Hearing: On November 26, 1996, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Negative Declaration and PD Rezone to the City Council. City Council Public Hearing: On December 17, 1996, the City Council introduced the Ordinance approving the Planned Development Rezone and continued the public hearing to January 7, 1997, for second reading. ANALYSIS: Environmental: A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project, which adequately describes this project for the purposes of CEQA (Exhibit 4). General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Consistency: The proposed Planned Development Rezone is consistent with the City of Dublin General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Planned Development Rezone: The Applicants are requesting approval of a Planned Development (PD) Rezone to establish the General Provisions and Development Regulations that include uses that reflect the current development on the site and add new uses including hotel/motel and automotive uses. Additionally, the new Planned Development would have the effect of updating the existing Planned Developments (3 that exist on the site) and consolidating them under one Planned Development. The General Provisions and Development Regulations are set forth in full in Exhibit 3. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council reopen the continued public hearing, deliberate, adopt a Resolution approving a Negative Declaration (Exhibit 1), waive the second reading and adopt the Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow a PD Rezone (Exhibit 2) and adopt the Resolution Approving and Establishing Findings and General Provisions (Exhibit 3). GSPA96-043 ,ccsr_ RESOLUTION NO. ' A RESOLUTIQN OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR PA 96-043 ENEA PLAZA PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE PROJECT WHEREAS, Robert Enea of St. Michael's Investments submitted an application requesting approval of a Planned Development Rezone for a retail commercial development consisting of 19.9+ acres; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA guidelines and City Environmental Guidelines require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project as it will not have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study was conducted finding that the project, as proposed, would not have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommending approval of the Negative Declaration at a public hearing on November 26, 1996; and WHEREAS, public notice of Negative Declaration was given in all respects as required by law; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby find: 1. That the project will not have a significant effect on the environment based on review of the Initial Study and public testimony. 2. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in accordance with State and local laws and guideline regulation; and 3. That the Negative Declaration is complete and adequate. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council hereby approves the Negative Declaration for PA 96-043 Enea Plaza Planned Development Rezone Project. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of January, 1997. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:\96-043\ccndres ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDIN.&NCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING THE ZONING ORDIN.-MNCE TO PERMIT THE REZON1NG OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AIVL4~OR PLAZA ROAD .4~D DUBLIN BOULEVARD IN THE DOV~VNTOWN SPECIFIC PL.4aNNING AiLEA (APNs: 941-1500-38-1, 48, 42-1, 49-2, 49-3, 5I-2, 52, and 53.) The City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows: Section 1 Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the Dublin Ordinance Code is hereby amended in the following manner: Approximately 19.9 acres generally located at the southeast comer of Amador Plaza Road and Dublin Boulevard in the Downtown Specific Planning area, more specifically described as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 941-1500-38-1, 48, 42-1, 49-2, 49-3, 51-2, 52, and 53 are hereby rezoned from a Planned Development to a Planned Development Commercial/Office as shown and described on the application for a Planned Development Rezone and on Exhibit 3 (Resolution No. Approving and Establishing Findings, General Provisions and Conditions of Approval), exhibit to the Staff Report dated December 17, 1996, to the City Council, on file with the CiD' of Dublin Department of Community Development, and hereby adopted as the regulations for the future use, improvement, and maintenance of the property within this District. A map of the rezoning area is outlined below: -'5 I ",, ',/;:/', '. xx '5 EXHIBIT 2 Section 2 This ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days from and after its passage. Before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage, it shall be published once, with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and against same, in a local newspaper published in Alameda County and available in the City of Dublin. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 7th day of January, 1997, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:~A96-043\ORD 3 ( RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A_ND ESTABLISHING FINDINGS, GENERAL PROVISIONS, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A REVISED, CONSOLIDATED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING FOR PA 96-043 ENEA PLAZA WHEREAS, Enea Plaza has requested approval of a Planned Development Rezoning for a retail commercial development consisting of 19.9± acres; and WHEREAS, the Planned Development Rezone shall supersede the three existing Planned Developments (1464 Zoning Unit; PA 87-018; and PA 87-178); and WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted a Land Use and DevelopmentPlan as required by Section 8.3 l- 13 of the Zoning Ordinance which meets the requirements of said section; and WHEREAS, the Planned Development Standards are attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and a Negative Declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on November 26, 1996, and did adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve and establish findings, general provisions and development standards for a Planned Development Rezoning for PA 96-043; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Staff'Report was submitted recommending that the City Council approve the Planned Development; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Planned Development Rezone: 1. The Planned Development Rezone, as conditioned, is consistent with the general provisions, intent, and purpose of the PD District Overlay Zone of the Zoning Ordinance. The Planned Development Rezone will be appropriate for the subject property in terms of providing General Provisions which set forth the purpose, applicable provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, range of permitted and conditionally permitted uses, and Development Standards; which will be compatible with existing commercial uses in the immediate vicinity, and will enhance development of this area; and 2. The Planned Development Rezone is consistent with the general provisions, intent and purpose of the Downtown Specific Plan. The Rezone implements the intent and development standards identified in that document and will thereby serve to implement the provisions of the Downtown Specific Plan in this area; and 3. The Planned Development Rezone is consistent with the intent of the General Plan which designates this area as Retail/Office in that the Planned Development Rezone contains uses that correspond with the intent of this Land Use Designation and because the project would create development within the densities allowed by this Designation; and 4. The Planned Development Rezoning will not have a substantial adverse affect on health or safety or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to property o.r public improvement as all applicable regulations will be met; and 5. The Planned Development Rezoning will not overburden public services as all agencies have commented that public services are available; and 6. The Planned Development Rezoning will create an attractive, efficient and safe environment through the implementation of the Standards identified in the Rezone document; and 7. The Planned Development Rezoning will benefit the public necessity, convenience and general welfare and is in conformance with Sections 8-31.0 to 8-31.19 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; and 8. The Planned Development Rezoning will be compatible with and enhance the general development of the area because it will be developed pursuant to the Standards and site development review; and 9. The Planned Development Rezoning will provide an environment that will encourage the efficient use of common areas to create an innovative type of commercial development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT except as specifically included in Exhibit A, attached and made a part of this Resolution, development and operation of land use activities within this planned development, shall be subject to the City of Dublin Zoning Code in effect at the time the development and land use activities are considered. Changes or revisions to this document, including Exhibit A shall be subject to those requirements contained within the most current Zoning Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Clerk does hereby approve PA 96-043, Enea Plaza Planned Development, subject to the General Provisions and Development Standards ~vhich constitute regulations for the use and improvement of the 19.9+ acres APNs 941-1500-38- I, 48, 42-1, 49-2, 49-3, 51-2, 52, and 53 asincluded on Exhibit A attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of January, 1997. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:\PA96043\ccres C TY OF RO. Box 2340, Dublin, Caiifornia 94568 City Offices. 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 945F-':. NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Prepared pursuant to City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines, Section 1.7(c), 5.5) Description of Project: Enea Plaza, an existing retail and office complex in the City of Dublin proposes to update its existing Planned Development Zoning District. The existing Planned Development was originally approved by Alameda County in 1981. The new Planned Development District includes those uses presently allowed, as well as provides for uses that reflect the changing market in the Tri Valley Area. Project Location: 6670 - 6694 Amador Plaza Rd. and 7450 - 7496 Dublin Blvd. (APNs: 941-1500-38-1, 48, 42-1,49-2, 49-3, 51-2, 52, and 53.) Name of Proponents' Robert S. Enea, St. Michael Investments, 6670 Amador Plaza Rd., Dublin, CA 94568 I hereby find that the above project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Attached is a copy of the Initial Study ("Environmental Information Form" and "Environmental Checklist") documenting the reasons to support the above finding. Mitigation Measures have not been included in this project. Dated: November 8, 1996 Jeri I~am, Associate Planner Attachments Ac,ministration (810) 833-6650 · CityCouncii [810) 833-6605 · Finance (510) 833-6640 - Building Inspection (510) 833-5620 CodeEnforcemenl (510) 833-6620 · Engineering (510) 83,3-6630 - Parks&CommunitySewices (510) 833-6648 EsonomicDeveto~men! (510t833-6650 · Poli:'e f51D!SS3-6670 · PubficWorks (810~833-6630 · P',anning (510)833-6610 ENEA PLAZA INITIAL STUDY File No. PA 96-043 Lead Agency: City of Dublin Prepared: November, 1996 q INTRODUCTION This initial study has been prepared by the City of Dublin to assess the potential environmental effects of the proposed Planned Development for Enea Plaza. The analysis is intended to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and provide the City with adequate information for project review. This initial study includes a project description, environmental checklist and discussion focused upon issues identified in the checklist. In summary, this Initial Study concludes that the project will not pose any significant adverse environmental impacts. The Initial Study was prepared based upon the location of the project, staff office review, field review, comments from City, County and local agencies, use of City Planning Documents, the CEQA Law and Guidelines, and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines. 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Enea Plaza, an existing retail and office complex in the City of Dublin proposes to update its existing Planned Development Zoning District. The existing Planned Development was originally approved by Alameda County in 1981. The new Planned Development District includes those uses presently allowed, as well as provides for uses that reflect the changing market in the Tri Valley Area. 3 Figure One: Figure Two: Figure Three: FIGURES Vicinity Map Site Plan Off-Ramp Diagram (Highway 680) 4 ' " VICINITY MAP '~' O O O DOWNTOWN DUBLIN Location Map DUBLIN DOWNTOWN DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA FIGURE ONE THE SITE SITE PLAN DUBLIN BLYD. lilltliltlU F.u-.ru~.. RIG, HT-OF-WAy m .-I r~ .< © ...q OFF-RAMP DIAGRAM 'THREE 10. Project title: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Enea Plaza Planned Development Rezone Lead agency name and address: City of Dublin, Planning Department, 100 Civic Dr., Dublin, CA 94568 Contact person and phone number: Jeri Ram, Associate Planner Project location: 6670 - 6694 Amador Plaza Rd. and 7450 - 7496 Dublin Blvd. Project sponsor's name and address: Robert S. Enea, St. Michael Investments, 6670 Amador Plaza Rd., Dublin, CA 94568 General plan designation: Retail/Office 7. Zoning: Planned Development Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Enea Plaza, an existing retail and office complex in the City of Dublin proposes to update its existing Planned Development Zoning District. The existing Planned Development was originally approved by Alameda County in 1981. The new Planned Development District includes those uses presently allowed, as well as provides for uses that reflect the changing market in the Tri Valley Area. Surrounding land uses and setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings) The Project is located adjacent Highway 680 on the east, Highway 580 on the south, Dublin Blvd. and retail development on the north, and retail development on the east. A new off ramp from highway 680 is planned and will intersect this project. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) N/A ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. _ Land Use/Planning Transportation/Circulation Public Services _ Population/Housing Biological Resources Utilities/Service Systems _ Geotechnical Energy/Mineral Resources Aesthetics _ Water Hazards Cultural Resources Air Quality Noise Recreation - Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially Significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the propose~ . Signature .~ -'-':' '- Jeri I~am, Associate Planner EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an E1R is required. 4) 5) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. See the sample question below. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Unless Less than Jmpact Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #: 1,2,4,) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( 1,2,3,4 ) [] [] [] X [] [] [] X c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( 1,2,3,4,6 ) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? ( 1,2,3,4,6 ) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a Iow-income or minority community)? ( 1,2,3,4, 6 ) Potentially Significant Impact [] Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X I!. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( 7 ) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( 7 ) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (7) [] [] X X X .:.!.'."JII. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in vi!": '~ or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( 1,2,4, 6 ) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( 1,2,4, 6 ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( 1,2,4, 6 ) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( 1,2,4, 6 ) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( 1,2,4, 6 ) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( 1,2,4, 6 ) g) Subsidence of land? ( 1,2,4, 6 ) h) Expansive soils? ( 1,2,4, 6 ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( 1,2,4, 6 ) [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] X [] [] [] [] [] [] [] X [] X X X X X X X IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (1,2, 3,4,6 ) X 11 IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: b) Exposure of people or properly to water related hazards such as flooding? ( 7 ) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ( 7 ) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( 7 ) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (7) 0 Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( 7 ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( 7 ) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( 7 ) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( 7 ) b) c) d) AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( 1, 2,4, 6 ) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( 7 ) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (7) Create objectionable odors? ( 7 ) TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION, Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( 1,2,4, 6 ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( 7 ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (1,3) d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite? ( 1,2,3, 4 ) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( 7 ) 0 Conflicts with adopted policies suppoCdng alternative transportation (e.g., but turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( 7 ) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ( 7 ) Potentially Significant lmpa~ [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorpo~ted [] [] [] [] [] [] Less than Significant Impact [] [] [] [] [] [] X [] [] [] [] [] [] No Impact X X X X X X X X ,.(?;:-:.!.! X X X X [] X X X X X X ....':¥.Vll. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. ".'. ' Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? ( 1, 2,3,4, 6) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? ( 1,2,3 ) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( 1, 2,3) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( 1,2,3 ) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1,2,3) VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) b) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans ? ( 7 ) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (7) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( 7 ) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6 ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( 1, 2, 3,4, 6 ) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? ( 1,2, 3,4, 5, 6 ) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( 1,2, 3,4, 5, 6 ) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (7) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated [] [] Less than Significant Impact [] [] No Impact X X X X X X X X X X X X X a) NOISE. Would the proposal result in: Increases in existing noise levels? ( 2, 4, 6 ) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( 2, 4, 5, 6 ) [] [] [] [] X X XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( 1,2,4, 5, 6 ) b) Police protection? ( 1,2,4, 5, 6 ) c) Schools? ( 7 ) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( 1,2 ) e) Other government services ( 1,2 ) Xll. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( 2 ) b) Communications systems? (2) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (2) d) sewer or septic tanks? ( 2 ) e) Storm water drainage? ( 2 ) 0 Soiid waste disposal? ( 2 ) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( 2 ) Xlll. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or highway? ( 1,2, 3,4 ) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetics effect? ( 1,2, 3,4) c) Create light or glare? ( 1, 2,3 ) XiV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( 1,2, 3,4 ) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( 1,2, 3,4 ) c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( 1,2,3,4 ) d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( 1,2, 3,4 ) Potentially Significant Impact [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Less than Significant Impact X X [] X X [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] No Impact [] [] X [] [] X X X X X.. :"b'.. X ~!?'~:: :' X X X X X X X X 14 '":' XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( 7 ) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( 7 ) X X SOURCES: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Determination based on location of project. Determination based on staff office review. Determination based on field review. Determination based on the City of Dublin General Plan. Determination based on the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Determination based on Downtown Specific Plan. Not Applicable. XVl. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Potentially Potentially Less Than I No significant Significant Unless Significant ImpactI Impact Impact Mitigated ::..?) Does the project have the potential to degrade the ..::.;. quality of the environment, substantially reduce the " habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or X wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? X c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a X project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, X either directly or indirectly? 15 a) b) c) XVll. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which are incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. DISCUSSION OF CHECKLIST 1. Land Use and Planning. Environmental Settina: The project site consists of 20 + acres of partially developed land adjacent Highways 580 and 680. The site has been partially developed since the early 1980s. The site is generally flat with access on Amador Plaza Road and Dublin Boulevard. The planned construction of on and off ramps from Highway 680 (which will bisect the site, will also provide good freeway access to the site. The project is partially built out, however, due to the planned construction of the Highway 680 on and off ramps, portions of the site will be demolished. Additionally, proposed plans and revisions to the PD Standards indicate that a hotel and restaurant may be built adjacent the planned Highway 680 on and off ramps. Proiect Impacts: There are no impacts to Items lA through 1E. This determination is based on the record as well as the references listed below. This project is consistent with the City of Dublin General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan. This initial study represents full California Environmental Quality Act compliance with regard to the proposed project. The City of Dublin has adopted no other City-wide or specific environmental plans or policies which would affect this application. The existing land uses in the vicinity are retail, entertainment retail or office and compatible with the proposed retail, entertainment retail, hotel, office land uses proposed. The 'i:i.~?':'i'site has no recent history of agricultural production and has been partially developed with retail/commercial land uses since the early 1980s. 2. Population and Housing. Environmental Settina: The City population as of January 1, 1996, was estimated by the State Department of Finance to be 26, 267. Significant population growth is anticipated for the community based on planned residential growth in east Dublin. Proiect Impacts: There are no impacts to Items 2A through 2C. This determination is based on the record as welt as the references listed below. This project is a Planned Development for retail, entertainment retail, hotel and office land uses in a partially developed center in downtown Dublin. It therefore does not impact population in the area. 3. Geologic Problems. Environmental Settina: The site lies within the San Ramon Valley, a short distance from the Dougherty Hills. California Division of Mines and Geology indicate that the site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Seismic Zone (1982). The nearest active and potentially active seismic faults include the Calaveras fault, located approximately 1/2 mile to the west. Proiect Impacts: There are no impacts to Items 3A through 31. This determination is based on the record as well as the references listed below. The topography of the site is relatively flat with minor surface variation; only minor grading will be necessary to place structures on the site. No geologic hazards are known or suspected to exist on the site or in the surrounding areas. 4. Water. Environmental Settinq; No surface water exists on the site. The nearest surface water source is Alamo Creek approximately 1/4 mile to the east of the site. According to a representative of Zone 7, the project site, as well as the remainder of the Tri-Valley area, is underlain by an extensive underground aquifer. The aquifer ranges in depth between 15 feet and 500 feet but is no longer used as the primary source of domestic water in the area. ~'i;;~i:'il.. Proiect Impacts: There are no impacts to Items 4A through 41. This determination is based on the record as well as the references listed below. The project site does not cross over any water ways. Presently the area proposed for the Planned Development is either developed with commercial uses, planted with landscaping or vacant. The placement of any new structures will not impact groundwater. Zone 7 has in place Special Drainage Area 7-1. The District charges fees to finance flood control improvements within Drainage Area 7-1. The fees are collected at the time of issuance of building permit. 5. Air Quality. Environmental Settinq: The project site is located within the Livermore-Diablo Valley, a sheltered, inland area surrounded by hills to the west, south and east. Most of the air flow into the southern portions of the Valley is accomplished through only two gaps in the hiIIs: the Hayward and Niles canyons. Local wind data show the frequent occurrence of Iow wind speed and calm conditions (the latter approximately 23 percent of the time). These local limitations on the capacity for horizontal dispersion of air pollutants combined with the regional characteristic of restricted vertical dispersion give the area a high potential for regional air quality problems. 18 Proiect Impacts: · "['here are no significant impacts to Items 5A through 5D. This determination is based on the record as well as the references listed below. The site is generally developed with existing retail, retail entertainment and office uses. The existing Planned Development for the site permits all these types of uses. Construction of a hotel or motel would add additional vehicular traffic to this portion of Dublin, as identified in Section 6, Traffic and Circulation. These additional vehicles will generate quantities of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gasses, nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter (PM10). However, the location of the proposed hotel/motel would be adjacent the planned on and off ramps for Highway 680. The location of the proposed hotel would limit the amount of travel from the Highway, thereby minimizing vehicle trips and associated air quality impacts in conformity with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Guidebook "Improving Air Quality Through Local Plans and Programs". In terms of construction related impacts, it is anticipated that the future construction of a hotel might generate temporary increases in dust and particulate matter caused by site excavation and grading activities. The City's standard grading ordinance requirements require measures to ensure that these types of short term construction impacts are minimized. 6. Transportation/Circulation. Environmental Settina: Major roadways serving the site are: Interstate 580, a six-lane east-west freeway connecting Dublin with nearby local communities such as Livermore and Pleasanton and regional destinations, such as Tracy and Oakland. · Interstate 680, a six-lane north-south freeway connecting Dublin with local communities in the Tri-Valley area and regional destinations north and south of Dublin. · Dublin Boulevard is a major east-west arterial within Dublin and is configured as a 6 lane road adjacent this location. Dublin Boulevard serves primarily industrial and commercial uses in the vicinity of the project. · Amador Plaza Road is a collector road that intersects the project and forms a cul-de-sac. Amador Plaza Road runs north south and serves office and commercial uses in the project and in the vicinity of the project. It is presently 2 lanes, but will be widened to 4 lanes as part of the construction of the new off ramp and parallel road projects. Planned roadways that will serve the site are: Interstate 680 on and off ramps which will intersect the project. The 'parallel road" which will be a continuation of the planned Interstate 680 off ramp. The parallel road will run parallel to Dublin Boulevard. The alignment for the road has been approved. It will run from Amador Plaza Road and terminate at Regional Street. The road will provide an alternative road running south of Dublin Boulevard, connecting three cul-de-sacs in the vicinity. 19 Project Impacts: ~;.':-! :.-. There are no significant impacts to Items 6A through 6G. This determination is based on the record as well ,'.:.:.: the references listed below. City of Dublin Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal. City policy requires that any new construction on the site will be charged a traffic impact fee which will pay for circulation improvement in the area. 7. ,8. & 14. Biological, Energy and Mineral, and Cultural Resources. Environmental Settina: The site is partially developed with commercial and office uses. A portion of the site is landscaped with decorative landscaping. Approximately 6 acres of the site is vacant with no significant trees or other vegetation. The area adjacent 1-680 has some poplar trees and eucalyptus trees. .Proiect Impacts: There are no impacts to Items 7A through 7El 8A through 8C; or, 14A through 14D. This determination is based on the record as well as the references listed below. The project will be located on an already existing commercial development. The portion that is vacant has no significant vegetation and is adjacent Highway 680. Field visits to the site have not identified any animals. While the poplar and eucalyptus trees will most likely be removed during construction, standards of the Downtown Specific Plan require ehanced landscaping adjacent 1-680. Therefore, no biological, mineral, energy or cultural resources will be impacted by this project. 9. Hazards. Environmental Settina: The site is partially developed with commercial and office uses. These types of uses generally do not create hazardous environments. Project Impacts: There are no impacts to Items 9A through gE. This determination is based on the record as well as the references listed below. The types of uses proposed and existing generally do not create hazardous environments. As part of the Site Development Review Process, proposals for new construction are reviewed by Fire, Police and other agencies for emergency access as well as other concerns. 10. Noise. Environmental Settina: The project is a Planned Development for a retail, retail entertainment and office development. A portion of the site is built out. Six acres remain vacant. A portion of the six acres will be developed with on and off ramps for Highway 680. A hotel/motel is proposed adiacent the future on and off ramps. 2O Proiect Impacts: There are no significant impacts to Items 10A and 10B. This determination is based on the record as well as the references listed below. Although the Hotel would be located adjacent 1-580 and 1680, Title 24 of the State Uniform Building Code requires sound mitigation for hotels to 45 CNEL in the interior of the hotel. Therefore, the location of the hotel and the people staying there would not be adversely impacted by the freeway noise. 11. Public Services. Environmental Settincl: The project site is served by the following service providers: · Fire Protection. Fire protection is provided by the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority which provides structural fire suppression, rescue, hazardous materials control and public education services Police Protection. Police protection is provided by the Dublin Police Department which is headquartered in the Civic Center. The Department, which maintains a sworn staff of 31 officers, performs a range of public safety services including patrol, investigation, traffic safety and public education. · Schools. Educational facilities are provided by the Dublin Unified School District which operates kindergarten through high school services within the community. Maintenance. The City of Dublin provides public facility maintenance, including roads, parks, street trees and other public facilities. Dublin's Civic Center is located at 100 Civic Plaza. Other Governmental Services. Other governmental services are provided by the City of Dublin including community development and building services and related governmental services. Library service is provided by the Alameda County Library with supplemental funding by the City of Dublin. Environmental Impacts: a) Fire Protection. According to representatives of the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority, the proposed project lies within a one mile radius of a fire station located on Donohue Drive in Dublin. A typical response time of under 5 minutes is anticipated. As part of the site development review process, specific fire protection requirements will be imposed on the development to ensure compliance with applicable provisions of the Uniform Fire Code. b) Pofice Protection. According to representatives of the Police Department, adequate resources presently exist to serve the proposed development. c) Schools. This project is for office and commercial uses. School fees in accordance to State law would be charged at building permit issuance. d) Maintenance ofpubfic facilities including roads. The project has access from two existing streets, Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road. Additionally, a new road is planned "the parallel road", that will run outh of Dublin Boulevard (see circulation section, above). The applicant is required to pay a traffic impact fee to the City of Dublin which will assist in off-setting costs of public roadway maintenance. The fee is charged at building permit issuance. --."~-::-: e) Other governmental services. The City of Dublin charges a public facilities fee for all new development in the community for the purpose of financing new municipal public facilities needed by such development. 12. Utilities and Services Systems. Environmental Settinq: The project site is serviced by the following service providers: · Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric · Communications: Pacific Bell · Water supply and sewage treatment: Dublin San Ramon Services District · Storm Drainage: Zone 7 · Solid Waste Disposal: Dublin-Livermore Disposal Company Proiect Impacts: There are no impacts to Items 12A through 12G. This determination is based on the record as well as the references listed below. Utility providers have reviewed the project and have determined that either the infrastructure exists or a method to fund the infrastructure has been provided for. Standard impact fees will be charged by DSRSD and Zone 7. /'-.'. :::': 13. Aesthetics. Environmental Settina: The proposed project is located in the downtown area of Dublin. The project is commercial in nature and surrounded by commercial development. Enea Plaza has been developed with a design theme that includes use of brick, tile and other materials. Proiect Impacts: There are no impacts to Items 13A through 13C. This determination is based on the record as well as the references listed below. The City's Zoning Ordinance requires that any new structure go through the Site Development Review Process. As part of that process, aesthetic elements are considered. One use listed as a permitted use in the proposed Planned Development District would be a auto parts retailer with related vehicle servicing. This use has been conditioned in the PD Rezone to minimize the aesthetic impact of the service area by facing that part of the use away from public streets and shielding it from view by use of landscaping and trellises. Therefore, site development review together with the regulations regarding the siting of the repair area will ensure that the aesthetic environment is preserved. 22 14. See No. 7, Cultural Resources, above. Recreation. Project Settinq: The proposed project is located in the downtown area of Dublin. The project is commercial in nature and surrounded by commercial development. Project Impacts: There are no impacts to Items 15A or 15B. This determination is based on the record as well as the references listed below. The City has in place a Public Facilities Fee which is charged to all development in the City. The fee pays for improvements to parks as well as other public facilities in the City. G:~PA96-040\lnitial 23 9~ EXHIBIT 5 NV3d 3J_IS