Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 Dublin Ranch Subarea 3OF t'�4( - &2 STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK v CITY COUNCIL File #400- 20/420- 30/450 -30 DATE: February 18, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Christopher L. Foss, Acting City Manager J SUBJECT: Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 General Plan /Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 Development Plan, Development Agreement and CEQA Addendum (PLPA 2013- 00033) (Related agenda item: 3; action on the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment will be deferred to item 3) Prepared by Mike Porto, Consulting Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Applicant is representing a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (EDSPA) and Planned Development rezone with proposed related Stage 1 Development Plan for the 64 -acre area, a Development Agreement and a CEQA Addendum. The proposed GPA /EDSPA would modify the acreage allocated to land uses as follows: a) Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14 units per acre) — from 27.2 acres to 38 acres; b) Medium - High Density Residential (MHDR) (14.1 to 25.0 units per acre) — from 8.6 acres 7.5 acres; c) Rural Residential /Agriculture — from 0 acres to 14.5 acres (as a partial replacement for 24.9 acres of Open Space); and d) Stream Corridor — from 1.3 acres to 2 acres. No changes are proposed for a two -acre Neighborhood Park. The Request also includes Planned Development Zoning and a Stage 1 Development Plan consistent with the GPA /EDSPA. A conceptual project of approximately 437 units is anticipated. The developer will make a community benefit payment of $1.8 million to assist with the completion of the Fallon Sports Park Phase II improvements which is included as a term in the proposed Development Agreement. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The developer will make a Community Benefit payment of $1.8 million to assist in the completion of the Fallon Sports Park Phase II improvements which is included as a term in the proposed Development Agreement. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing, deliberate, adopt Resolution adopting a CEQA Addendum for the Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 Project and adopting a related Statement of Overriding Considerations; waive the reading and INTRODUCE an Ordinance approving a Planned Development Zoning District with a related Stage 1 Development Plan to replace uses adopted by Ordinance 24 -97; and waive the reading and INTRODUCE an Ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Lennar Homes of California, Inc. Page 1 of 10 ITEM NO. 6.1 Submitted By Reviewed By Community Development Director Acting Assistant City Manager PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The subject site is located in Area B of Dublin Ranch and received PD Zoning approval in 1997 predating the Stage 1 and Stage 2 PD approval process. The 64 -acre project site is undeveloped and currently vacant-, it is bounded on four sides by improved streets. Since the original land use approvals in 1997, there have been no additional applications or requests for entitlements. However, precise alignments for both Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Road have been adopted and subsequently improved resulting in a reconfiguration of the development areas and a request by the property owner to modify the land use layout. Preliminary grading has been done at various times on the site. DUBLIN SU13AREA3 PROJECT AREA PLEASANTON VICINITY MAP The site has two hills in the northeast corner rising to an elevation of 470 feet and causing the site to slope from the northeast to the southwest. The slopes on the site range from less than 5% to 50% on the face of the hills. A stream corridor on the site travels approximately 1,000 feet from the northwest corner of the site in a southeasterly direction to the middle of the site. At that point, the water is collected in a storm drain pipe which ultimately drains to the regional water quality basin located between 1 -580 and Dublin Boulevard. Surrounding streets are Central Parkway to the north, Dublin Boulevard to the south, Fallon Road to the east, and Lockhart Street to the west as shown on the vicinity map above. Uses adjacent to and surrounding the project site include- a) Fallon Community Sports Park on the north across Central Parkway-, b) Fallon Gateway and a vacant site across Dublin Boulevard to the south planned for a regional medical facility-, c) The Groves Lot 3, a Medium -High Density project of 122 townhouse /condominiums on a vacant site west across Lockhart Street concurrently under consideration as well as the existing 610 units of the Fairway Ranch Page 2 of 10 apartments; and d) a vacant property planned for commercial, residential and open space uses across Fallon Road to the east. Abutting the project to the south and east are two properties that are part of Subarea 3, but not a part of the current request, described as: 1) General Commercial — a 2.0 acre site located along the north side of Dublin Boulevard, and 2) Semi - Public — a small site owned and used by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) located along the west side of Fallon Road. Current Proposal: The current proposal by the Applicant /Property Owners, Integral Communities, includes: • General Plan /Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to modify the acreage allocated to land uses as follows: a) Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14 units per acre) — from 27.2 acres to 38 acres; b) Medium -High Density Residential (MHDR) (14.1 to 25.0 units per acre) — from 8.6 acres 7.5 acres; c) Rural Residential /Agriculture — from 0 acres to 14.5 acres (as a partial replacement for 24.9 acres of Open Space); and d) Stream Corridor — from 1.3 acres to 2 acres. No changes are proposed for a 2 -acre Neighborhood Park. • Planned Development Rezone with related Stage 1 Development Plan • Development Agreement • CEQA Addendum ANALYSIS: The proposed General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and PD rezoning are discussed below. Staff's analysis is broken up into several sections which describe each component of the project. General Plan & Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment State law limits General Plan amendments to four per General Plan Element per calendar year. This approval would be the first amendment to the Land Use Element for 2010. In order to avoid amendments in excess of the number permitted by State Law, General Plan amendments for specific projects can be grouped together and adopted by one resolution. Therefore, this proposed General Plan Amendment has been grouped together with the proposed The Groves Lot 3 and Subarea 3 General Plan Amendments as a separate item to be heard later on the same agenda and approved with one action (Resolution). All approvals under this agenda item will not become effective until the General Plan Amendment item is approved and effective. Specific Plan amendments are not limited to four per year; however, the proposed Specific Plan amendments have been grouped together with their companion General Plan amendments. Although the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments will be acted upon later at this meeting, the analysis is repeated here in order to fully understand the application. Land Use Designations The Applicant is requesting to change the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Uses as shown in Table 2 and Figure 2 below. Page 3 of 10 TABLE 2: Existina and Proposed Land Uses — Subarea 3 Land Use Existing Proposed Acres Units Acres Units Medium Density Residential (MDR) (6.1 to 14.0 units per acre) 27.2 166 -381 38 232 -532 Medium High Density Residential (MDR) 8.6 121 -215 7.5 106 -187 (14.1 to 25.0 units per acre) Rural Residential /Agriculture (RR /A) (1 unit per 100 acres) 0 0 14.5 0 Open Space (OS) 24.9 -- 0 -- Stream Corridor (SC) 1.3 -- 2.0 -- Neighborhood Park (NP) — No Change 2.0 -- 2.0 -- Total 64 287 -596 64 338 -719 Figure 2 Existing Lana uses Proposed Lana uses - - - - -- Medium T \ \,\ .e r Density Y ` \ 1 , Residential \ \ \\ +8.3 ± ac Ao \ Corridor I I u3:ac � r 1 Open Space 1 1 a4.9t at Park zoe ac 1 Medium �n / Medium .�...M / Density Densk Residential Residential ��—i 19.7c ac Jp J ,-- - - - ---J The proposed densities and land use distribution will allow for continuity of open space and a more effective utilization of the property. The requested land use distribution would group residential uses in three areas — a) 7.5 acres of MHDR along the westerly edge of the project site along Lockhart Street across from The Groves, the proposed MHDR residential development to the west; b) a 19.7 -acre neighborhood of MDR north of Dublin Boulevard adjacent the open space and Neighborhood Park, and c) an MDR neighborhood of approximately 18.3 acres within the northeast area of the site. The proposed land use amendments would increase the acreage for MDR and the Stream Corridor by reassigning the land currently designated Open Space and slightly reducing the acreage for MHDR. The Open Space land use would be eliminated in favor of Rural Residential /Agricultural which allows more flexible options for aesthetic improvements such vineyards, orchards, and community gardens while preserving an Open Space characteristic. The following is a further discussion of the proposed land uses. • Medium Density Residential and Medium -High Residential (MDR and MHDR) - At a maximum, the proposed acreage by use /densities would allow up to 719 units. As elsewhere in Eastern Dublin, this potential is limited through the required PD- Planned Page 4 of 10 Development zoning. A project of approximately 437 units is anticipated based on a general concept plan reflecting the requested amendment to be distributed as 107 units of MHDR (14.27 units per acre) and 330 units MDR (8.68 units per acre). This figure is within the range of the existing land uses and would not represent a significant deviation from the level of development anticipated under the existing land uses. The number of units proposed within the development envelope will ensure that the on -site grading is optimized and the natural drainage is preserved. • Rural Residential /Agricultural (RR /A) - The RR /A land use is proposed for frontage along Central Parkway adjacent to the Stream Corridor and extends diagonally across the project site to the southeast corner and includes the south facing slope of the hillside as further discussed below. The RR /A designation allows the construction of one residential dwelling unit per 100 acres (1 unit /100 acres). However, since the RR /A land use is less than 100 acres, no units would be permitted within that 14.5 acre area, and the Applicant is not proposing to construct or retain any dwelling units in that area . The RR /A area would be managed by the homeowners association. • Stream Corridor (SC) - The Stream Corridor would be expanded from 1.3 acres to 2.0 acres and generally would remain in its existing location. The Stream Corridor was created to fulfill biological mitigations required for development of other portions of Dublin Ranch. • Neighborhood Park (NP) — No changes in location or size are proposed for the 2 -acre Neighborhood Park. It would remain in the central location originally anticipated adjacent to residential uses and open space areas. Visual Resources The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Visual Resource Section 6.3.4 identifies view corridors as well as certain hillsides as visually sensitive. A portion of the project site includes low lying hills that were identified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as "visually sensitive ridgelands" and located within an area contemplated in the City of Dublin Scenic Corridor Policy. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan states that these hillsides are to remain to provide a distinctive visual feature as well as provide a screen for development to the north. The Specific Plan policies do permit grading of these ridge lands providing adherence to the policies are taken into account. Previously significant graded areas of the site were needed to accommodate roadway improvements; however, that grading did conform to the Visual Resources policies. The Specific Plan allows for development on the backside of these hills within certain standards in the Specific Plan. The south face of these hills (exposed to 1 -580) were designated as Open Space to maintain the natural appearance and intended to remain in order to provide a natural backdrop and screen development to the north. The proposed designation for this area will help ensure that natural undeveloped appearance is maintained. The Applicant's grading concept will conform to the policies of the Visual Resources section of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Most grading activities will occur behind or in front of the current hills with specific contour grading to blend the existing hills with the graded land form. Upon completion, the hillside will be revegetated and will serve to screen development. In addition to recontouring the hill, a small mound graded along the Fallon Road side of the site would serve to hide a large share of the Medium Density Residential planned for the Page 5 of 10 northeasterly area of the project site. This neighborhood would be designed to fit within the natural contours having building pads stepped gradually to match the existing topography of the back side of the hill. Where feasible, the graded slopes would be 3:1 or less. Cut and graded slopes would be revegetated with native vegetation or vineyards. The requested General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments would require adjustments to various figures, texts, and tables in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to ensure consistency throughout the documents. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment will be considered as a separate agenda item. The draft City Council resolution, with a complete list of the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, is included with that agenda item. Planned Development Rezone The Applicant is requesting approval of a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 Development Plan. The proposed zoning would ensure consistency with the land use amendment. The proposed Stage 1 Planned Development Rezone includes: proposed uses, project access, phasing plan, Master Neighborhood Landscaping Plan, and master infrastructure plan as described below. Proposed Uses - A comprehensive list of permitted, conditional, and accessory uses, are provided with the Stage 1 Development Plan. General Development Standards /Design Concept Site Plan - The concept plan for the proposed project places the higher density housing along the westerly edge of the project site along Lockhart Street in the form of 107 Medium High Density units on 7.5 acres resulting in approximately 14.27 units per acre, and 330 Medium Density units, including single - family homes. The 38 acres located in the central and northeasterly areas of the project site would include 330 Medium Density units, including single - family homes at a density of 8.68 units per acre. Based on the Concept and Site Plan, the High Density Residential effectively would be 14.27 units per acre. Sub Area 3 Site Plan The Stage 1 Development Concept and Site Plan show uses consistent with the requested General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments. Access & Circulation - There will be two primary access points to the site. One will be located on Lockhart Street generally at the intersection with Finnian Way, south of Central Parkway. The entrance would provide access to the High Density Residential housing along Lockhart Page 6 of 10 Street and to the Medium High Density housing north of Dublin Boulevard. The second point, providing access to Medium Density Residential in the northeasterly part of the project site, would be located off of Central Parkway across from the entrance to Fallon Sports Park. It is anticipated that minor vehicular access points may be included as well as emergency vehicle access points (EVA) as required. A review of the joint access points with Fallon Sports Park on Central Parkway will be more thoroughly reviewed for traffic control and land configuration in conjunction with the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Map once the design, unit count and final configuration of the on -site roadways are determined. A 10 -foot wide paved, meandering trail /access road will follow along the stream corridor and through the RR /A area. The trail is proposed to be a continuation of the multi -use regional trail system that starts offsite in the northern portion of Dublin Ranch. The trail on the project site will start at the northwest corner of the site and travel behind the lots and the Neighborhood Park to Dublin Boulevard connecting to the Fallon Gateway retail center. A secondary trail also is proposed to connect the northerly portion of the site with the southern portion of the site through the Rural Residential /Agriculture portion of the site. Sidewalks will be constructed on all perimeter and internal streets to provide pedestrians from both the project and surrounding neighborhoods access to the nearby commercial centers. Grading - The site has undergone some preliminary grading over the years to construct the stream corridor and for drainage and vegetation management. Also, grading has occurred along the perimeter with the construction of the major roadway improvements of Fallon Road and Dublin Blvd. Future grading in conjunction with the Stage 2 Development Plan, SDR and Vesting Tract Map will conform to the policies required in the Visual Resources section of the EDSP. Master Landscape Plan - A Master Landscape Plan is provided indicating compliance with the adopted Streetscape Master Plan. This plan indicates that the street tree pattern for the surrounding arterials and collector streets is consistent with that approval document. Detailed landscape plans for both the perimeter and internal streets will be provided in conjunction with the future Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review. Phasing Plan - The Applicant is proposing to develop the site in two phases beginning in the north east corner of the site with Phase 1 and the moving westerly with Phase 2 An Ordinance approving the Planned Development Rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan for Subarea 3 is included as Attachment 1. The Applicant is required to obtain approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review prior to constructing a project on this site. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT California Government Code §§ 65864 et seq. and Chapter 8.56 of the Dublin Municipal Code (hereafter "Chapter 8.56 ") authorize the City to enter into an agreement for the development of real property with any person having a legal or equitable interest in such property in order to obtain certain commitments and establish certain development rights for the property. The proposed Development Agreement addresses the entire 64 -acre Dublin Ranch Subarea 3. Page 7 of 10 Development Agreements are approved by an ordinance of the City Council upon recommendation by the Planning Commission. The proposed Development Agreement (Attachment 2 to Exhibit A) was drafted with input from City Staff, the project Applicant, property owner, and the City Attorney based on the standard Development Agreements prepared by the City Attorney and adopted by the City Council for projects located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The Development Agreement provides security to the developer that the City will not change its zoning and other laws applicable to the project. The Development Agreement becomes effective for a term of five (5) years from the date of approval by the City Council. The City also benefits from entering into the Development Agreement with the property owner. Under the Development Agreement, the Developer agrees to make a community benefit payment of $1.8 million dollars to assist with the completion of Fallon Sports Park Phase II improvements. The Agreement is a contract that establishes obligations for both parties. The proposed Development Agreement also would be consistent with the previous development agreements associated with this property and approved for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Lennar Homes of California, Inc. has an option to buy the Subarea 3 property at this time. It will be the owner of the property at this time the ordinance approving the Development Agreement takes effect if the Agreement is approved by the City Council. In order to ensure that the City receives the community benefit payment under the Agreement, the Project Approvals will not take effect until the Agreement takes effect and is recorded on the Subarea 3 Property. A City Council Ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Lennar Homes of California, Inc. is Attachment 2, with the Development Agreement included as Exhibit A. CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN & ZONING ORDINANCE The application includes proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, PD- Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan, CEQA Addendum and a Development Agreement. The proposed amendments to the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan reflect land uses that are compatible with the adjacent areas and surrounding development. The proposed project will contribute to housing opportunities and diversity of product type as a complement to the surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed Stage 1 Planned Development rezoning for Subarea 3 would be consistent with the requested land use amendments. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan which evaluates compatibility of the design with adjacent and surrounding development via pedestrian circulation, gathering spaces, open spaces, and integration with the village concept. In general, the proposed project furthers the goals of the Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan by providing a high quality of life and preserving resources and opportunities for future generations. REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES: The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, Dublin Police Services, Dublin San Ramon Services District and the Alameda County Airport Land Use Page 8 of 10 Commission Staff reviewed the projects to ensure that they are planned and will be built in compliance with all local Ordinances and Regulations. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, which was the subject of an Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (SCH # 91103064), certified by the City Council in Resolution No. 51 -93. The General Plan Amendment /Specific Plan EIR is a program EIR, which anticipated several subsequent actions related to future development in Eastern Dublin and identified some impacts from implementation of the General Plan Amendment /Specific Plan that could not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin project, the City adopted a statement of overriding considerations for such impacts. The City also adopted a mitigation- monitoring program, which included numerous measures intended to reduce impacts from the development of the Eastern Dublin area. The environmental impacts of the existing land uses were addressed by the Negative Declaration approved by the City Council in Resolution No. 140 -97 for the Planned Development Rezoning for 453 acres of Dublin Ranch (Areas B -E). An Initial Study was prepared and a determination was made to prepare an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR and 1997 ND, included as Exhibit A to the City Council Ordinance (Attachment 3). Pursuant to the 2002 Citizens for a Better Environment case, approval of the Addendum will include a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit B to Attachment 3) for significant unavoidable impacts identified in the prior EIR that are applicable to the project or project site. All other EIRs NDs, Resolutions, and Ordinances referenced above and throughout the Staff Report are incorporated herein by reference and are available for review at City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California during business hours. Planning Commission Actions: On January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the Subarea 3 project. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone with related Stage 1 Development Plan, and a CEQA Addendum. The Planning Commission Staff Report is included as Attachment 4 and the draft minutes of the Planning Commission meeting are included as Attachment 5. The Commission deliberated and approved the following resolutions by a 4 -1 vote: • Resolution 14 -03, recommending that the City Council adopt a CEQA Addendum (Attachment 6); • Resolution 14 -4, recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution amending the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Attachment 7); • Resolution 14 -5, recommending the City Council approve a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 Development Plan (Attachment 8); Additionally, on February 11, 2014, the Planning Commission considered and recommended approval of the Development Agreement which is included in this Staff Report. Page 9 of 10 PUBLIC NOTICING: In accordance with State law, a public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project to advertise the project and the upcoming public hearing. A public notice was also published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. A copy of this Staff Report has been provided to the Applicant. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance approving a Planned Development Zoning District for Subarea 3 with a related Stage 1 Development Plan to replace uses adopted by Ordinance 24 -97 2. Ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Lennar Homes of California, Inc. with the Development Agreement included as Exhibit A 3. Resolution adopting a CEQA Addendum for the Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 Project and adopting a related Statement of Overriding Considerations with the Addendum included as Exhibit A and The Statement of Overriding Considerations included as Exhibit B 4. January 28, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report 5. January 28, 2014 Draft Planning Commission minute. 6. Planning Commission Resolution 14 -03, recommending that the City Council adopt CEQA Addendum 7. Planning Commission Resolution 14 -4, recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution amending the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for the Subarea 3 and The Groves Lot 3 8. Planning Commission Resolution 14 -5, recommending the City Council approve a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 Development Plan Page 10 of 10 ORDINANCE NO. XX — 14 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * * * * ** REZONING DUBLIN RANCH SUBAREA 3 TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PLPA 2013 -00033 The Dublin City Council does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. RECITALS A. Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 ( "project ") is in Dublin Ranch Area B in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. On October 10, 1994, the City Council adopted Ordinance 4 -94 prezoning the 1,538 acre Dublin Ranch to PD- Planned Development in accordance with the 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Following annexation of Dublin Ranch, the City Council adopted Ordinance 24 -97 on December 2, 1997 rezoning Dublin Ranch Areas B -E to PD- Planned Development and adopting the then - required Land Use and Development Plan (LUDP) by Resolution 141 -97. The LUDP established permitted uses, development standards and other regulations for future development of Areas B -E. Subarea 3 was anticipated for up to 485 units. B. The PD- Planned Development zoning for the project would supersede Ordinance 24 -97 as to the Subarea 3 project area. C. The project includes companion applications for amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and for a Development Agreement. SECTION 2. FINDINGS A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1. The Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 PD- Planned Development zoning meets the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 in that it provides a comprehensive development plan that creates a desirable use of land that is sensitive to surrounding land uses by virtue of the layout and design of the site plan. 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 it provides residential development in an area that supports residential uses, such as the sports park to the north, but is also a transition to planned medical center and mixed uses to the south and east. The Project provides a high degree of design and landscaping to complement existing and planned uses in the area. 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 future development in the surrounding area in that it provides residential development in an area that supports residential uses, and the sports park to the north, but is also a transition to planned medical center and mixed uses to the south and east. The Project provides a high degree of design and landscaping to complement existing and planned uses in the area. 2. The Project takes advantage of the flatter areas of the site to locate development. Grading on the site will ensure that much of the development is behind the small hill and not visible from Hwy. 580. The project site is in an infill area that is fully served by public services and existing roadways. There are no major physical or topographic constraints and thus the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the proposed residential development. 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. 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 residential and other uses and the site plan are consistent with the land use designations for the site approved in connection with the Project. C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council adopted a CEQA addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR and 1997 Negative Declaration, as set forth in Resolution xx -14 on , 2014, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference. 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 ( "Property ") to a Planned Development Zoning District- 64 acres at the northwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Road, (APN 985 - 0027 -012) A map of the rezoning area is shown below- LOT 3 & J SUB AREA 3 - — at Dublin Ranch lA 14 4 ` u M .___. .________...- � 1 STAGE t ED SITE PLAN J rtnia NP MH 1 III DECEMBER 2013 r, MH � oUgLIN %VH:.... —." !' '"(�dFf�tfk42"eb6,3k"BFA i� , wumuw a �, w. �uwxmmrewxu �anw mm. „ ._ " """ °� - SHEET - - -- ,... PD1.1 2 SECTION 4. The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Property are set forth in the following Stage 1 Development Plan for the Project area, which is hereby approved. Any amendments to the Stage 1 Development Plan shall be in accordance with section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code or its successors. Stage 1 Development Plan for Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 This is a Stage 1 Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. This Development Plan meets all the requirements for a Stage 1 Development Plan and is adopted as part of the PD- Planned Development rezoning for Dublin Ranch Subarea 3, PLPA 2013- 00033. The PD- Planned Development District and this Stage 1 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. 1. Statement of permitted, conditional, and accessory uses. Proposed Uses: Permitted, Conditional and Accessory Uses PD-Rural ResidentiallAgriculture Permk ed Lhes Agricultural A ccessory Use — Of ce, outbuiIdi ngs, etc. Crop, vine, or tre e farm, truckgardeR plant nursery, greenhouse apia y. aviary, hatchery, horticulture (excludes field and stalk crops) Drainage and Water Quality Ponds and Other Related Facilities Outdoor recreation facility Private or Public Infrastructure Storm Water Detention Ponds and Other Related Facilities Trails and Maintenance Roads Trail Staging Area Winery Cond&orMJ Uses Permitted uses subject to reviewfor consistency with the Livermore Municipal Airport Airport Land Use Compati bility Plan (ALUCP) (August2012) PD-Medium Density PerFMUed Lhes Acc essory structures and uses in accordance with Section 8.90.030 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance Combinations of attached ordetached dwellings. zero -lot line units. duplexes, townhouses, multF family dwellings Home occupation in acc ordanc e with Chapter 8.64 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance Multi- Family Dwelling Unit Nursing homes for not more than three patients Single Famihy Dwelling Unit Conch ixrna thes Acc essory structures and uses located on the same site as a conditional use Assisted Iiuingfacility Bed and Breakfast inns Community clubhouse Community facilities Hospital in districts requiring not more than fifteen hundred (I, 500) square feet of building site area per dwelling unit Large family day care homes Medical or residential care facility (i or more clients) Mobile home parVs, as regulated by the zoning ordinance Parking lot; as regulated in the zoning ordinance Plant nursery or greenhouse used only forthe cultivation of plant materials (wholesale only) Public and SemtiPublic Facilities 3 PQ Medium High Dertsitr PermNved Lhes Accessory structuresand uses in accordance with Section 8.401330 of the Dublin zoning Ordinance Combination ofapartments, condominiums townhomes Home occupation in acc ordanc ewith Chapter8.64 of the Dublin zoning Ordinance MultLfamily dwellings Nursing homes for not more than three patients Carrel &or>aJ u3es Accessory structures and uses located on the same Ste as a conditional use Assisted I rvi ng fac il ity Bed and Breakfast inns Community clubhouse Community facilities Hospital in districts requiring not more than fifteen hundred (I, 500) square feet of building site area per dwelling unit Large family day care homes Medical or residential care facility (7 or more clients) Mobile home parics, as regulated by the zoning ordinance Parking lot as regulated in the zoning ordinance Plant nursery ergre enhe us, e used onlyferthe cultivation of plant materials (wholesale only) Public and SemEPublic Facilities P D- Paris PermNved Lhes Neighborhood Square Recreational and educational facility Trail Staging area Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director A .,Awry Ike. Parking lot supportinga primary use K Stage 1 Site Plan. 9 3. Site area, proposed densities. Gross /net area: 64 acres. Maximum number of units: 437. Allocation of units: Medium High Density Residential - 107 units; Medium Density Residential — 330 units. 0 Phasing Plan. Project will be built in two phases SC "�- iU�i / /j/ f I RR /A ; �Y .s NGI'h PAkW' it 1 J" [c 14:l7APAW1 � ,� nJrrrw: 'w� W ATBI(e ARCU7 SUBUv'I'YCI3 LWEWJJ,i tlNB7N.4E11ASrWXSUR WA$I WI.AULF0,WH WAJWUY<ONFIt0..47NUUPUN,4 WA$ Itldtfi'VftULCnt7, WWMM76 UW' (1'F vUl1 AAkJl3NN� C4RROUNDWG 9711. EtlY YrJu;STR4f2" EXTEIlhOED 1: ry &9DRROGIM47WU $t'pEC'.i's bVW.p. @E E:XiRNUEh IIJWU i J Y .,,.. _....,w 5 5. Master Neighborhood Landscaping Plan. 6. Grading. Future grading will conform to the policies required in the Visual Resources section of the Eastern Uublin Specific Flan 0 as shown below- SECTION "O" SCALE: 1 250" NOMMEM SECTION E' SCALE. 1°- 300° d »Vi�af�'�V��d�NVld �(h�y�rle'tJ" �G✓ �1('' ���1��QkVV��' hSY�J'% 7�f��l y� (�i�� "I!6�Y�i��I�V'�'�"'i'�1i} Sections I B °tlIP N 1 h� C 0 r" 7. General Plan and Specific Plan Consistency. The Project is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan through companion amendments approved in conjunction with the PD rezoning. 8. Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. The Project's required inclusionary housing has been previously satisfied. No further inclusionary housing is required for the Project. 9. Aerial Photo. 7 SECTION 5. OTHER ZONING REGULATIONS. Pursuant to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, section 8.32.060.C, the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Project area shall be governed by the provisions of the closest comparable zoning district as determined by the Community Development Director and of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance except as provided in the Stage 1 Development Plan. SECTION 6. PRIOR PD ZONING SUPERSEDED. Ordinance 24 -97 and the related Land Use and Development Plan approved in Resolution 141 -97 are inapplicable as to the Project and are hereby superseded to that extent. SECTION 7. POSTING. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this 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. SECTION 8. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall not take effect until the Development Agreement for Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 takes effect and is recorded on the Property. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this day of 2014, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk 2235529.1 Mayor ORDINANCE NO. XX - 14 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC. RELATING TO THE SUBAREA 3 PROJECT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. RECITALS A. The Applicant, Kevin Fryer, submitted a Planning Application for residential development on Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 which would result in future development of up to 437 single family residences on an approximately 64 acre site (“Project”). The Project proposes General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to reallocate existing Medium High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential land uses, to reduce and change Open Space land uses to Rural Residential/Agriculture and to increase the Stream Corridor designation; and B. The Project would rezone Subarea 3 to the Planned Development zoning district and would approve a related Stage 1 Development Plan for future development of up to 437 dwelling units along either side of a stream corridor and open space area. The General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, Planned Development rezoning and Stage 1 Development Plan are collectively referred to herein as “Project Approvals”; and C. The Applicant and City desire to enter into a Development Agreement subject to certain terms, including a community benefit payment to the City in the amount of $1.8 Million for Fallon Sports Park Phase II improvements and the vesting of the Project Approvals for five years; and D. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the state guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and E. Development of the Project area has been previously analyzed in two documents approved under CEQA; (1) Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (SCH # 91103064), certified by the City Council in Resolution No. 51- 93 (“Eastern Dublin EIR”); and (2) Negative Declaration approved by the City Council in Resolution No. 140-97 for the Planned Development Rezoning of 453 acres of Dublin Ranch (Areas B-E) (“1997 ND”). The City prepared a CEQA addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR and 1997 ND for the Subarea 3 Project (“Addendum”). The proposed Development Agreement would vest the Project Approvals for the Subarea 3 Project as described in the Addendum and does not change any of the development under the Project Approvals. Therefore, the Development Agreement is within the scope of the Project described in the Addendum and its environmental impacts are addressed by the Addendum; and F. On January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-03 recommending that the City Council adopt the Addendum, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and G. On February 11, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement (for which public notice was given by law) and adopted Resolution 14-09 recommending that the City Council adopt the Development Agreement, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and H. A public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement was held before the City Council on __________, 2014 for which public notice was given as provided by law; and I. The City Council used their independent judgment and considered the Staff Report, the Addendum, Eastern Dublin EIR, 1997 ND, and all reports, recommendations and testimony referenced above and adopted Resolution No. XX-14 approving the Addendum prior to approving the Development Agreement; and J. The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission on the Development Agreement, 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. 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 Addendum, (e) the Staff Report; (f) information in the entire record of proceeding for the Project, and on the basis of the specific conclusions set forth below, the City Council finds and determines that: 1. 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 General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations, policies, programs and objectives are incorporated into the Development Agreement and not altered by the Development Agreement; 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. 3. The Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare, and good land use policies in that the Project will implement land use guidelines set forth in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the General Plan. 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 Project Approvals. 2 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 Project Approvals. 6. The Development Agreement complies with the requirements of §§ 65864 et seq. of the California Government Code and Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.56 and specifies the duration of the agreement, the permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. The 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 ______, 2014 by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _____________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ City Clerk 2235003.2 3 ORDINANCE NO. XX - 14 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC. RELATING TO THE SUBAREA 3 PROJECT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. RECITALS A. The Applicant, Kevin Fryer, submitted a Planning Application for residential development on Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 which would result in future development of up to 437 single family residences on an approximately 64 acre site (“Project”). The Project proposes General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to reallocate existing Medium High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential land uses, to reduce and change Open Space land uses to Rural Residential/Agriculture and to increase the Stream Corridor designation; and B. The Project would rezone Subarea 3 to the Planned Development zoning district and would approve a related Stage 1 Development Plan for future development of up to 437 dwelling units along either side of a stream corridor and open space area. The General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, Planned Development rezoning and Stage 1 Development Plan are collectively referred to herein as “Project Approvals”; and C. The Applicant and City desire to enter into a Development Agreement subject to certain terms, including a community benefit payment to the City in the amount of $1.8 Million for Fallon Sports Park Phase II improvements and the vesting of the Project Approvals for five years; and D. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the state guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and E. Development of the Project area has been previously analyzed in two documents approved under CEQA; (1) Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (SCH # 91103064), certified by the City Council in Resolution No. 51- 93 (“Eastern Dublin EIR”); and (2) Negative Declaration approved by the City Council in Resolution No. 140-97 for the Planned Development Rezoning of 453 acres of Dublin Ranch (Areas B-E) (“1997 ND”). The City prepared a CEQA addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR and 1997 ND for the Subarea 3 Project (“Addendum”). The proposed Development Agreement would vest the Project Approvals for the Subarea 3 Project as described in the Addendum and does not change any of the development under the Project Approvals. Therefore, the Development Agreement is within the scope of the Project described in the Addendum and its environmental impacts are addressed by the Addendum; and F. On January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-03 recommending that the City Council adopt the Addendum, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and G. On February 11, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement (for which public notice was given by law) and adopted Resolution 14-09 recommending that the City Council adopt the Development Agreement, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and H. A public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement was held before the City Council on __________, 2014 for which public notice was given as provided by law; and I. The City Council used their independent judgment and considered the Staff Report, the Addendum, Eastern Dublin EIR, 1997 ND, and all reports, recommendations and testimony referenced above and adopted Resolution No. XX-14 approving the Addendum prior to approving the Development Agreement; and J. The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission on the Development Agreement, 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. 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 Addendum, (e) the Staff Report; (f) information in the entire record of proceeding for the Project, and on the basis of the specific conclusions set forth below, the City Council finds and determines that: 1. 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 General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations, policies, programs and objectives are incorporated into the Development Agreement and not altered by the Development Agreement; 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. 3. The Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare, and good land use policies in that the Project will implement land use guidelines set forth in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the General Plan. 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 Project Approvals. 2 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 Project Approvals. 6. The Development Agreement complies with the requirements of §§ 65864 et seq. of the California Government Code and Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.56 and specifies the duration of the agreement, the permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. The 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 ______, 2014 by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _____________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ City Clerk 2235003.2 3 RECORDING REQUESTED BY: CITY OF DUBLIN ►TJI04i1Y •T eWeI►TAF10Oe 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 0ZII] LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC FOR THE SUBAREA 3 PROJECT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ( "Agreement" or "Development Agreement ") is made and entered into in the City of Dublin on this day of 2014, by and between the CITY OF DUBLIN, a Municipal Corporation ( "City ") and LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation ( "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 ( "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 64 acres of land at the northwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Road, (APN 985 - 0027 -012) and that is more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and is incorporated herein by reference. C. Developer, or its predecessor in interest, has applied for, and City has approved or is processing, various land use approvals in connection with the development of the Project, including, without limitation, a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (Resolution. No. adopted by the City Council on , 2014), a Planned Development Zoning and Stage 1 Development Plan Ordinance (Ordinance No. , adopted by the City Council on , 2014), and this Development Agreement. All such approvals, collectively, together with any approvals or permits now or hereafter issued with respect to the Project, are referred to as the "Project Approvals." D. The proposed project ( "Project ") includes construction of up to 437 attached and detached residential dwelling units on the site, grading of the site, extension of utilities, and related improvements. The Project includes 38 acres of medium density residential, 7.5 acres of medium -high density residential, 14.5 acres of rural residential /agriculture, 2 acres for stream corridor, and 2 acres of neighborhood park. E. City desires the timely, efficient, orderly and proper development of the Project. F. The City Council has found that, among other things, this Development Agreement is consistent with its General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and has been reviewed and evaluated in accordance with the Development Agreement Statute and Chapter 8.56. 2 G. 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. H. The Project is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, which was the subject of a Program Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (SCH # 91103064), certified by the City Council in Resolution No. 51- 93 ( "Eastern Dublin EIR "). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, including the Property site, some of which could not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring program, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. I. The environmental impacts of the existing permitted land uses on the Property also were addressed by the Negative Declaration approved by the City Council in Resolution No. 140 -97 for the Planned Development Rezoning of 453 acres of Dublin Ranch (Areas B -E) ( "1997 ND "). The 1997 ND included the approximately 64 acres of land in Sub Area 3 of Planning Area B, which is the area to be developed by the Project. The 1997 ND concluded that the potentially significant impacts of developing Areas B -E had been adequately described and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and that no new or more severe significant impacts would result from future development in Areas B -E. J. For the Project, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if additional review of the proposed Project was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared an Addendum, dated (Resolution. No. , adopted by the City Council on ), describing the Project and finding that impacts of the proposed Project were adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 1997 ND, and no further environmental review under CEQA is required. K. On , _ 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. approving this Development Agreement ( "the Approving Ordinance "). The Approving Ordinance will take effect on ( "the Approval Date "). NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing recitals and in consideration of the mutual promises, obligations and covenants herein contained, City and Developer agree as follows: AGREEMENT Description of Property. The Property that is the subject of this Agreement is described in Exhibit A attached hereto ( "Property "). 3 2. Interest of Developer. The 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 the Developer is not an agent of the City. 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 Developerjoint venturers or partners. 4. Effective Date. Term. and Community Benefit Pavment. 4.1. Effective Date. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the Approval Date ( "Effective Date "). 4.2. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and extend five (5) years thereafter, unless said term is otherwise terminated or modified by circumstances set forth in this Agreement. 4.3. Termination on Sale of Individual Lots. Notwithstanding the foregoing Section 4.2, the provisions of this Agreement shall terminate with respect to any individual lot and such lot shall be released from and shall no longer be subject to this Agreement (without the execution or recordation of any further document or the taking of any further action) upon the lot being finally subdivided and sold or leased (for a period longer than one (1) year) to a member of the public or any other ultimate user. City shall cooperate with Developer, at no cost to City, in executing in recordable form any document that Developer (including any successor to the title of the Developer in and to any of the aforedescribed lots) may submit to confirm the termination of this Agreement as to any such lot. 4.4. Community Benefit Pavment. The Developer shall provide a Community Benefit Payment of One Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,800,000.) to the City, payable on or before the recordation of the first final subdivision map for a portion of the Project, or December 5, 2014, whichever date is earlier. The Community Benefit Payment will be applied towards costs relating to Phase II improvements of Fallon Sports Park. No building permits shall be issued for the Project until the full payment required under this Section has been made to the City. This Term survives the expiration of this Agreement. 12 5. Use of the Property. 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 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. (Such amendments, once effective, shall become part of the law Developer is vested into without an additional amendment of this Agreement.) Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything to the contrary herein, any amendment to the General Plan, the Specific Plan, PD zoning, and the Stage 1 Development Plan applicable to the Property and in effect on the Effective Date 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 state and City laws. 5.2. Permitted Uses. The permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height, bulk, and size of proposed buildings, the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, the location and maintenance of on -site and off -site improvements, the location of public utilities (operated by the City), and other terms and conditions of development applicable to the Property, shall be those set forth in this Agreement, the Project Approvals and any amendments to this Agreement or the Project Approvals, subject to the provisions of Section 5.1. 5.3. Rules Regarding Permitted Uses. For the term of this Agreement, the City's ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing the permitted uses of the Property and governing density and intensity of use of the Property and the maximum height, bulk and size of proposed buildings shall be those in force and effect on the Effective Date of the Agreement. 5.4. Rules Regarding Design and Construction. Unless otherwise expressly provided in Paragraph 5 of this Agreement, the ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the Project shall be those in force and effect at the time of the applicable discretionary approval, whether the date of that approval is prior to or after the date of this Agreement. Ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing design, improvement and construction standards, and specifications applicable to public improvements to be constructed by Developer shall be those in force and effect at the time of the applicable discretionary approval, whether the date of that approval is prior to or after the date of this Agreement. 5.5. Uniform Codes Applicable. The Project shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, and Fire Codes and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, 5 relating to Building Standards, in effect at the time of approval of the appropriate building, grading, encroachment or other construction permits for the Project. 6. Subsequently Enacted Rules and Regulations. 6.1. 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 force and effect on the Effective Date of this Agreement and which are not in conflict with those applicable to the Property as set forth in this Agreement if: (a) the application of such new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or official policies would not prevent, impose a substantial financial burden on, or materially delay development of the Property as contemplated by this Agreement and the Project Approvals and (b) if such ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations, or official policies have general applicability. 6.2. Approval of Application. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the City from denying or conditionally approving any subsequent land use permit or authorization for the Project on the basis of such new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations, and policies except that such subsequent actions shall be subject to any conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements expressly set forth herein. 7. Subsequently Enacted or Revised Fees, Assessments and Taxes. The Project shall be subject to subsequently enacted or revised fees, assessments and taxes adopted by the City after the Effective Date of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement creates a vested right for the Project in the amount or type of fees, assessments and taxes in effect on the Effective Date of this Agreement. 8. Amendment or Cancellation. 8.1. 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 Chapter 8.56. 0 8.2. Amendment 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 state law and Chapter 8.56. 8.3. Insubstantial Amendments. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Paragraph 8.2, any amendments to this Agreement that do not relate to (a) the term of the Agreement as provided in Paragraph 4.2; (b) the permitted uses of the Property as provided in Paragraph 5.2; (c) the density or intensity of use of the Project; (d) the maximum height or size of proposed buildings; or (e) monetary contributions by Developer as provided in this Agreement, shall not, except to the extent otherwise required by law, require notice or public hearing before either the Planning Commission or the City Council before the parties may execute an amendment hereto. 8.4. 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 Chapter 8.56. 9. Annual Review. 9.1. Review Date. The annual review date for this Agreement shall be between June 1 and July 1, 2015 and thereafter between each June 1 and July 1 during the Term. 9.2. 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 (30) days' written notice that the City intends to undertake such review. Developer shall provide evidence to the Community Development Director prior to the hearing on the annual review, as and when reasonably determined necessary by the Community Development Director, to demonstrate good faith compliance with the provisions of the Agreement. The burden of proof by substantial evidence of compliance is upon the Developer. 9.3. Staff Reports. To the extent practical, the City shall deposit in the mail and fax to Developer a copy of all staff reports, and related exhibits concerning contract performance at least five (5) days prior to any annual review. 9.4. 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. 10. Default. 10.1. Other Remedies Available. Upon the occurrence of an event of default, the parties may pursue all other remedies at law or in equity that are not 7 otherwise provided for in this Agreement or in the City's regulations governing development agreements, expressly including the remedy of specific performance of this Agreement. 10.2. 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. If the default is not cured by the defaulting party within thirty (30) 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 (30) 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 (30) day period and diligently pursues such cure to completion. Failure to give notice shall not constitute a waiver of any default. 10.3. 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. 11. 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 (30) days following the receipt thereof, or such longer period as may reasonably be agreed to by the parties. 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. 12. Mortgagee Protection; Certain Rights of Cure. 12.1. 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 0 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. 12.2. Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 12.1 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 the 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. 12.3. 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 10.2 for not more than an additional sixty (60) days upon request of Developer or a Mortgagee. 13. Severability. The unenforceability, invalidity, or illegality of any provision, covenant, condition, or term of this Agreement shall not render the other provisions unenforceable, invalid, or illegal. 14. Attorneys' Fees and Costs. 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. 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 provision of this Agreement or the Project Approvals, the parties shall cooperate in defending such action. 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. 0 15. Transfers and Assignments. 15.1. Right to Assign. Developer may wish to sell, transfer, or assign all or portions of its Property to another entity (each such other entity is referred to as a "Transferee "). In connection with any such sale, transfer, or assignment to a Transferee, Developer may 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: 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 or delayed. 15.2. Approval and Notice of Sale, Transfer or Assignment. The City Manager shall consider and decide on any transfer, sale, or assignment within ten (10) 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 the 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. 15.3. Release Upon Transfer. Upon the transfer, sale, or assignment of all of Developer's rights, interests, and obligations hereunder pursuant to Paragraph 15.1 of this Agreement, Developer shall be released from the obligations under this Agreement, with respect to the Property transferred, sold, or assigned, arising subsequent to the date of City Manager approval of such transfer, sale, or assignment; provided, however, that if any Transferee approved by the City Manager expressly assumes all of the rights, interests, and obligations of Developer under this Agreement, Developer shall be released 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. 15.4. Developer's Right to Retain Specified Rights or Obligations. Notwithstanding Paragraphs 15.1 and 15.2 and Paragraph 16, Developer may withhold from a sale, transfer, or assignment of this Agreement certain rights, interests, and /or obligations, which Developer shall 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 Transferee shall then have no interest or obligations for such rights, 10 interests and obligations, and this Agreement shall remain applicable to Developer with respect to such retained rights, interests, and /or obligations. 16. Aareements Run With the Land All of the provisions, rights, terms, covenants, and obligations contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and their respective heirs, successors and assigns, 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 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. 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 the 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. 11 19. Insurance. 19.1. Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance. During the term of this Agreement, Developer shall maintain in effect a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance with a per- occurrence combined single limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) with a One Hundred Thousand Dollar ($100,000) self insurance retention per claim. 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. 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 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 (15) days prior written notice of the cancellation or reduction in coverage of a policy. 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. 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 Notices required to be given to Developer shall be addressed as follows: Gordon Jones, Vice President Lennar Homes of California 6111 Bollinger Canyon Road San Ramon, CA 94583 12 A party may change its address by giving notice in writing to the other party. 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 which shall be deemed given upon verification of receipt. 21. Agreement is Entire Understanding. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the parties. 22. 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 23. Counterparts. This Agreement is executed in three (3) duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original. Qz :zWOr:F. mer, The City shall record a copy of this Agreement within ten (10) days following execution by all parties. [Execution Page Follows] 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date and year first above written. CITY OF DUBLIN DEVELOPER LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC. Chris Foss, Acting City Manager By- Attest- Caroline Soto, City Clerk Approved as to form John Bakker, City Attorney 2232527.4 Gordon Jones Its: Vice President (NOTARIZATION ATTACHED) 14 Exhibit A Legal Description of Property The Land referred to herein below is situated in the City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California, and is described as follows: Parcel I as shown on Parcel Map 8734, filed in the Office of the Recorder of Alameda County on November 22, 2006 in Map Book 294 at Page 19. RESOLUTION NO. XX - 14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A CEQA ADDENDUM FOR THE DUBLIN RANCH SUBAREA 3 PROJECT AND ADOPTING A RELATED STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PLPA 2013 -00033 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Kevin Fryer, has submitted a Planning Application for residential development on Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 (Subarea 3) which would result in future development of up to 437 single family residences on an approximately 64 acre site. The project proposes General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to reallocate existing Medium High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential land uses, to reduce and change Open Space land uses to Rural Residential /Agriculture and to increase the Stream Corridor designation. The application also proposes a Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan and a Development Agreement. The applications are collectively referred to herein as the "Project "; and WHEREAS, the General Plan amendment for Subarea 3 would change the land use designations as follows: reduce Medium -High Density Residential from 8.6 acres 7.5 acres and move this use from the northeast area of the site to the western area of the site along Lockhart Street; increase Medium Density Residential from 27.2 acres to 38 acres along either side of an open space corridor; designate 14.5 acres of existing Open Space as Rural Residential /Agriculture (as a partial replacement for 24.9 acres of existing Open Space land use designation proposed for residential and rural residential /agriculture use); and increase the existing designated Stream Corridor from 1.3 acres to 2 acres. No changes are proposed for the existing 2 -acre Neighborhood Park designation; and WHEREAS, the project would also rezone Subarea 3 to the Planned Development zoning district and would approve a related Stage 1 Development Plan and Development Agreement for future development of up to 437 dwelling units along either side of a stream corridor and open space area; and WHEREAS, the Project site is vacant and undeveloped, with two small hills in the northeast corner of the site. A vegetated stream corridor flows from the northwest corner for approximately 1,000 feet and is collected into a storm drain pipe in the middle of the site. The site is bounded by Central Parkway to the north, Dublin Boulevard to the south, Fallon Road to the east, and Lockhart Street to the west. WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, the Project is in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the City Council certified a Program Environmental Impact Report by Resolution 51 -93 ( "Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR ", SCH 91103064) on May Page 1 of 5 10, 1993 (resolution incorporated herein by reference). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which could not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53 -93, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 is in Dublin Ranch Area B in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. On October 10, 1994, the City Council adopted Ordinance 4 -94 prezoning the 1,538 acre Dublin Ranch to PD- Planned Development in accordance with the 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Following annexation of Dublin Ranch, the City Council adopted Ordinance 24 -97 on December 2, 1997 rezoning Dublin Ranch Areas B -E to PD- Planned Development and adopting the then - required Land Use and Development Plan (LUDP) by Resolution 141 -97. The LUDP established permitted uses, development standards and other regulations for future development of Areas B -E. Subarea 3 was anticipated for up to 485 units on approximately 64 acres of Medium High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential uses on either side of an open space corridor; and WHEREAS, on November 18, 1997, the City Council adopted a Negative Declaration (ND) for the Area B -E project (Resolution 140 -97, incorporated herein by reference). The ND concluded that the potentially significant impacts of developing Areas B -E had been adequately described and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and that no new or more severe significant impacts would result from future development in Areas B -E; and WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant unavoidable impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which would apply to the Project; therefore, approval of the Project must be supported by a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, for the Subarea 3 Project, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if additional review of the proposed Project was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared an Addendum dated January 2014 describing the Subarea 3 Project and finding that the impacts of the proposed Project have been adequately addressed in the prior EIR and ND. The Addendum and its supporting Initial Study is attached as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Subarea 3 General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments and PD rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated January 28, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference described and analyzed the Subarea 3 General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments and PD rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan and related Addendum for the Planning Commission and recommended adoption of the CEQA Addendum and approval of the Project; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14 -03 recommending that the City Council adopt the CEQA Addendum for the Subarea 3 project, Resolution 14 -04 recommending that the City Council adopt the Subarea 3 General Plan and 2 of 5 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments and Resolution 14 -04 recommending that the City Council adopt the PD rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan , which resolutions are incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, on February 11, 2014, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Subarea 3 Development Agreement, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated February 11, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference described and analyzed the Subarea 3 Development Agreement for the Planning Commission and recommended approval of the Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, on February 11, 2104, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14 -XX recommending that the City Council approve the Development Agreement and finding that the environmental impacts of the Agreement were addressed in the Addendum; WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated , 2014 and incorporated herein by reference described and analyzed the Subarea 3 project and related Addendum for the City Council and recommended adoption of the CEQA Addendum and approval of the Project; and WHEREAS, on , 2014 the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Addendum, as well as the prior EDEIR and ND and all above - referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony before taking any action on the Project. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council makes the following findings to support the determination that no further environmental review is required under CEQA for the proposed Subarea 3 Project. These findings are based on information contained in the CEQA Addendum, the prior CEQA documents, the City Council Staff Report, and all other information contained in the record before the City Council. These findings constitute a summary of the information contained in the entire record. The detailed facts to support the findings are set forth in the CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study, the prior CEQA documents, and elsewhere in the record. Other facts and information in the record that support each finding that are not included below are incorporated herein by reference- 1 . The proposed Project does not constitute substantial changes to the previous projects affecting the Project site as addressed in the prior CEQA documents, that will require major revisions to the prior documents due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of previously identified significant effects. Based on the Initial Study, all potentially significant effects of the proposed Project are the same or less than the impacts for project which were previously addressed. The proposed Project will not result in substantially more severe significant impacts than those identified in the prior CEQA 3 of 5 documents. All previously adopted mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR continue to apply to the proposed Project and project site as applicable. 2. The Initial Study and Addendum did not identify any new significant impacts of the proposed Project that were not analyzed in the prior CEQA documents. 3. The City is not aware of any new information of substantial importance or substantial changes in circumstances that would result in new or substantially more severe impacts or meet any other standards in CEQA Section 21166 and related CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162/3. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin finds the following: 1. No further environmental review under CEQA is required for the proposed Project because there is no substantial evidence in the record as a whole that any of the standards under Sections 21166 or 15162/3 are met. 2. The City has properly prepared an Addendum and related Initial Study under CEQA Guidelines section 15164 to explain its decision not to prepare a subsequent or Supplemental EIR or conduct further environmental review for the proposed Project. 3. The City Council considered the information in the Addendum and prior CEQA documents before approving the land use applications for the proposed Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin adopts the CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study, attached as Exhibit A (and incorporated herein by reference), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 for the Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 project, including the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, the PD rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan and the Development Agreement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Mayor 4 of 5 City Clerk 2235621.1 5 of 5 Dublin Ranch Sub Area 3 GPA &SPA PLPA - 2013 -00033 INITIAL STUDYI CEQA ADDENDUM Lead Agency: City of Dublin Prepared By: Jerry Haag, Urban Planner �r JAN 2, 2114 January 28, 2014 Dl.ISLI14 pLANNING EXHIBIT A Table of Contents Introduction..................................................................................... ..............................2 Applicant.......................................................................................... ..............................3 Project Location and Context ........................................................ ..............................3 Prior Environmental Review Documents .................................... ..............................3 ProjectDescription .......................................................................... ..............................4 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ................................ .............................15 Determination................................................................................... .............................15 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .......................................... .............................17 Attachmentto Initial Study ............................................................ .............................30 1. Aesthetics .................................................................. .............................30 2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources .................... .............................33 3. Air Quality ................................................................ .............................34 4. Biological Resources ................................................ .............................36 5. Cultural Resources ................................................... .............................43 6. Geology and Soils .................................................... .............................45 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................... .............................48 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................... .............................48 9. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................... .............................51 10. Land Use and Planning ........................................... .............................53 11. Mineral Resources .................................................... .............................54 12. Noise .......................................................................... .............................55 13. Population and Housing ......................................... .............................57 14. Public Services .......................................................... .............................58 15. Recreation .................................................................. .............................60 16. Transportation/ Traffic ............................................ .............................61 17. Utilities and Service Systems .................................. .............................64 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................... .............................67 InitialStudy Preparers .................................................................... .............................68 Agencies and Organizations Consulted ....................................... .............................68 References......................................................................................... .............................68 City of Dublin Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study Introduction This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project described below. The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. Because the proposed project is generally based on the land use designations, circulation patterns etc. assigned to the project by the City of Dublin General Plan, the Initial Study relies on a Program EIR certified by the City in 1993 for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (the "Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 91103064). That EIR, also known in this Initial Study as the "Eastern Dublin EIR," evaluated the following impacts: Land Use, Population, Employment and Housing, Traffic and Circulation, Community Services and Facilities, Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage, Soils, Geology and Seismicity, Biological Resources, Visual Resources, Cultural Resources, Noise, Air Quality and Fiscal Considerations. In 1997, a Negative Declaration was prepared for multiple properties in the Eastern Dublin area, including Planning Area A (approximately 363 acres of land) and Areas B- E (approximately 468.5 acres of land), all located north of the I -580 Freeway, east of Tassajara Road and west of Fallon Road. This will be referred to as the "1997 ND," approved by the City Council on June 17, 1997, by City Council Resolution No. 140 -97. This CEQA document analyzed amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, proposed Planned Development rezoning to ensure consistency between City zoning an the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The 1997 ND included the approximately 64 acres of land in Sub Area 3 of Planning Area B, which is the subject of this analysis. The subject of this Initial Study is a proposed General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment and a Planned Development (PD) rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan applications to develop portions of the 64 -acre site located in the Eastern Dublin portion of the City of Dublin. The Development Plan includes construction of up to 437 dwellings at various densities and product types, internal roadways, open spaces and other related improvements. City of Dublin Page 2 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Applicant: Integral Communities 500 La Gonda Way, Suite 102 Danville CA 94526 Attn: Kevin Fryer (925) 899 -5065 Project Location and Context The project is located in the southeastern portion of the Eastern Extended Planning area of the City of Dublin as identified in the Dublin General Plan. More specifically, the project site is located south of Central Parkway, west of Fallon Road and north of Dublin Boulevard. Lockhart Street forms the western boundary of the site. The Alameda County Assessor's Parcel Number for the site is 985 - 0027 -12. Exhibit 1 depicts the regional setting of Dublin and Exhibit 2 shows the location of Subarea 3 in context with nearby features, including nearby roadways and adjacent creeks. The site is currently vacant and is characterized by relatively flat areas on the west side of the site with two small hills in the northeast corner rising to a height of 470 above sea level. The site generally slopes from northeast corner down to the southwest corner of the site. Slopes range from 5 to 50 %. Two small "outparcels" are located in the southeast area of the site as identified on Exhibit 2. These parcels are not part of the application. In addition to the two small hills on the site. a vegetated stream corridor exists on the northwest portion of the property. The corridor extends for a length of approximately 1000 feet in a northwest - southeast direction. Land to the west of the site, west of Lockhart Street, has been developed for attached dwelling units or is vacant. Land north of the site is currently vacant and is planned for a future expansion of Fallon Sports Park. Property east of the site is vacant. Land use south of the project site includes a combination of commercial uses (Fallon Gateway Center) and vacant land. Prior Environmental Review Documents The project has been included in two previous CEQA documents, as noted below: Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse #91103064). A Program Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (Eastern Extended Planning Area) and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) was certified by the City Council in 1993 by Resolution No. 51 -93. This document and its related Addenda collectively are referred to as the "Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR." It evaluated the following impacts: City of Dublin Page 3 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Land Use; Population, Employment and Housing; Traffic and Circulation; Community Services and Facilities; Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage; Soils, Geology and Seismicity; Biological Resources; Visual Resources; Cultural Resources; Noise; Air Quality; and Fiscal Considerations. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 53 -93) for the following impacts: Cumulative loss of agriculture and open space land, cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service), consumption of non - renewable natural resources, increases in energy uses through increased water treatment and disposal and through operation of the water distribution system, inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population, earthquake ground shaking, loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat, regional air quality, noise and alteration of visual character. The Eastern Dublin EIR was challenged in court and was found to be legally adequate. In 1994, the 1,538 acre Dublin Ranch portion of Eastern Dublin was prezoned to the Planned Development zoning district (Ordinance 4 -94) and subsequently annexed to the City. 1997 Negative Declaration In 1997, a Negative Declaration was prepared for a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment and Planned Development rezoning for approximately 453 acres of land, identified as Dublin Ranch Areas B -E and including Subarea 3 of Area B. The ND was approved by the City Council on November 18, 1997 by Resolution No. 140 -97. The 1997 General Plan and Specific Plan amendments did not affect Subarea 3; the PD rezoning supplemented the prior prezoning and adopted a District Planned Development Plan and Land Use and Development Plan, in accordance with then - existing PD requirements (Resolution 141 -97). The PD rezoning also included permitted uses, development standards and design guidelines applicable to Areas B -E, including Subarea 3. The related Negative Declaration and addressed all topics included in the standard CEQA checklist, updating them from the prior EDEIR analysis. . Project Description Overview. The proposed project includes construction of up to 437 attached and detached dwellings on the site, grading of the site, extension of utilities and related improvements. The applicant has requested approvals of the following in order to implement the project: amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and a PD rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan. Other City approvals, including but not limited to a Stage 2 Development Plan, a Site Development Review (SDR) permit and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map would be required to implement the proposed project. City of Dublin Page 4 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Existing Land Use Approval. The City of Dublin has approved a development plan for the site that would allow construction of up to 485 dwellings on the site (City Council Resolution 141 -97, November 18, 1997) generally in the northeast and west/ southwest portions of the site, on either side of the stream corridor and designated open space. Development Plan. The proposed Stage 1 Planned Development Plan is shown on Exhibit 3. As shown, residential development would generally occur in the western and north eastern portions of the site. A stream corridor located in a general northwest - south -east direction would fulfill environmental requirements for approved development projects elsewhere in Eastern Dublin. The southwest portion of the site would be reserved for Rural Residential/ Agriculture uses, primarily open space. The City of Dublin, through the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, has previously approved a range of land uses on this site, consisting of a mix of Medium Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential, Stream Corridor, Open Space and Park. Existing land use designations would allow a range of 287 to 596 dwellings on the site as well as 24.9 acres of Open Space, a 2.0 -acre Stream Corridor and a 2.0 -acre Neighborhood Park. Proposed uses that would be allowed under the amended General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the Planned Development rezoning process would include 437 total dwellings units as shown on Table 1. Table 1. Proposed Development Summary- Subarea 3 Land Use Type Acres Max. Dwellings Density (du /ac.) Med. Density Residential 38.0 330 8.6 Medium High Density Residential 7.5 107 14.2 Rural Residential /Agriculture 14.5 -- -- Stream Corridor 2.0 -- -- Neighborhood Park 2.0 -- -- Total 64.0 437 -- Source: Project Applicant 2013 The proposed amendment would allow slightly fewer dwellings on the site than previously approved (485 approved v. 437 proposed) and would replace much of the current Open Space designated portion of the site with a Rural Residential/ Agriculture (RR/ A) land use designation. City of Dublin Page 5 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 The applicant is proposing up to 107 multi - family dwellings in a row - condominium design. The proposal also includes up to 330 single - family homes. Proposed project design is described below. Circulation and access. Vehicular entry to the site would be provided for the southern portion of the site at the existing intersection of Finnian Way and Lockhart Street. A second access would be provided on the northern frontage along Central Parkway that would also provide access to Fallon Sports Park north of the project site. A traffic control device, either a stop sign or a traffic signal, would be installed at this intersection as determined by the Dublin Public Works Department. The internal circulation system is proposed to include a mix of local public residential streets and private alleys. Local residential streets would have a width of 36 feet, curb to curb, and a 5 -foot wide sidewalk. A 10 -foot wide paved meandering trail and access path is proposed along the stream corridor. The trail would be a continuation of an existing multi-use trail that starts in the north- central portion of the Dublin Ranch development. The trail would provide a pedestrian and bike connection between the north and south portions of the site. Building architecture and design. Sub Area 3 is proposed as a mix of residential densities and product types. The project would have the higher density townhome product along Lockhart Street to blend with the projects to the west of the project. As the project moves east the product would become less dense single - family homes. The northeastern corner of the project would accommodate single - family homes that would take advantage of the proximity of the project to the Fallon Community Sports Park to the north. The proposed architectural design for all products is a contemporary craftsman with a blend of materials including stucco, siding, brick veneer, concrete tile and standing seam metal roofs with decorative elements including balconies, and similar features. The residential townhomes are designed as a "6- pack " building cluster with six dwellings with front doors facing onto landscaped common paseos (open space areas). Garages of these units would be accessed from common alleys. The floor plans of these units are proposed to range in size from 1,902 s.f. to 2,170 s.f. Each of the units would have a private deck for outdoor use. The second housing type proposed in Sub Area 3 is a 3 -story single family home to be located on a 30 -ft. x 50 -ft. lot. The front doors of this product would face either on a public street or on a common landscaped paseo. Garages would be accessed from private drive aisles. The floor plans include 3 and 4 bedrooms and range in size from 1,975 s.f. to 2,291 s.f. Each of the homes would have a private side yard for outdoor use. The third housing type proposed in Sub Area 3 is designed to be a single- family dwelling located on either a 38 -ft. x 48 -ft. lot or a 48 -ft. x 48 -ft. lot. This two and three story product would include 3 -4 bedrooms with some plans offering optional 5t' City of Dublin Page 6 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 bedrooms and range in size from 1,729 s.f. to 2,917 s.f. The front doors would front on a public street or on a common landscaped paseo, while the garages would be accessed from private drive aisles. Each home would have either a side or backyard for private outdoor use. The last housing type proposed for Sub Area 3 is a 6 -unit cluster that would be located on 42, 45, and 54 -foot wide and 48.5 -foot deep lots. This product is designed to be more "traditionally oriented" with front doors off of the public street or adjacent to the garage on a private alley. The garages would be accessed from the public street or the private alley. This product ranges in size from 1,859 s.f. to 2,258 s.f. The majority of this product would be arranged into 6 -unit clusters. Open Space. The existing stream corridor on the site would remain where it is currently located. A portion of the site (approx. 14.5 acres) is proposed to be redesignated from Open Space to Rural Residential/ Agriculture which would allow for the flexibility of the site uses including allowing for viticulture. This would ensure that this portion of the site would remain undeveloped. Visually Sensitive Ridgelands. Two hills designated as "Visually Sensitive Ridgelands- Restricted Development" are located on the project site. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan states that these hillsides are to remain to provide a distinctive visual feature as well as providing a screen for development. The Specific Plan allows for development on the north side of these hills as long as they follow the policies in the Specific Plan. The proposed development would shift one of the existing hills from its present location to the south to allow for less dense development on the north side of the hill. The hill would be re- graded to appear as a natural hillside and sensitive engineering design and gradual transitions are being proposed as well as revegetation to minimize visual impacts. For the majority of the northern portion of the site, the recreated hill would rise above the proposed development and block views of it. A small mound would be built on southeastern side of the development envelope and this area planted to screen any potential views to the proposed homes. As proposed, the relocation of the hill would comply with the intent of the Specific Plan to provide a distinctive visual feature and screening for development. The neighborhood behind the hillside has been designed to fit with the natural contours and the building pads would step down gradually to match the existing topography of the back side of the hill. Where feasible the graded slopes are 3:1 or less. The cut and graded slopes would be re- vegetated with native vegetation or vineyards. The second existing hill would be removed and graded to accommodate proposed development. Utility services. Domestic water, recycled and sewer service would be provided by Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). The project developer would be required to install mainline extension of sewer along the frontage, to the entrance of the project as well as the in -tract water and sewer lines and laterals. City of Dublin Page 7 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Preliminary storm drainage plans include collecting storm water runoff into a series of underground storm drain lines and transporting storm water flows in a southwest direction into a subregional stormwater detention and bio- filtration pond located immediately north of the I -580 freeway west of the site that has been sized to accommodate runoff from development of the site. Grading. The applicant proposes to grade the site to allow construction of the residential areas, roadways and related improvements. One existing hill on the site is proposed to be graded to accommodate proposed development with the other hill relocated to the south that would allow a portion of the development while screening the view of development from motorists along I -580. Grading is proposed to balance on the site. Retaining walls would be constructed on several of the proposed lots as well as in portions of open space areas. Erosion controls would be implemented during grading activities pursuant to City and Regional Water Quality Board requirements, as enforced by the City of Dublin, to protect surface water quality. Inclusionary housing. The project's inclusionary housing requirement has been satisfied with the construction of The Groves residential project just west of the project site. Requested land use approvals. A number of land use approvals are required from the City of Dublin to construct the project as proposed. These are described in more detail below. General Plan Amendment. The City of Dublin General Plan designates the Subarea 3 site as a mix of Medium High Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Stream Corridor, Open Space and Neighborhood Park. The proposed General Plan land use designations would be generally consistent with current land use designations, but with a greater amount of Medium Density Residential and Open Space Uses and a smaller amount of Medium -High Density Residential. A portion of the current Open Space land use designation would be replaced with Medium Density Residential; most would be replaced with Rural Residential/ Agriculture. Neighborhood Park and Stream Corridor uses would remain. Exhibit 3 shows existing and proposed General Plan land use designations. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment. Similar to the requested General Plan Amendment, land use designations on the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land Use Maps would be changed to be consistent with the amended General Plan. PD Rezoning with related Stage I Development Plan. Previously approved land uses on the site would be replaced by a new Stage I Development Plan to reflect the proposed project, as shown on Exhibit 3. In addition, the following City approvals are required in order to construct the proposed project. City of Dublin [-age 8 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Stye 2 Development Plan, The Stage 2 approval would establish final land uses, land use intensity and development regulations for the project. Site Development Review (SDR). An SDR Permit is required to approve the exterior designs of structures, landscaping, project fencing, lighting and similar project details. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map(s). Tentative and Final subdivision maps are required to create individual buildings lots, roads, easements and similar elements. City of Dublin Page 9 January 2014 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project EXHIBIT 1 REGIONAL LOCATION SUB AREA 3 EXHIBIT 2 1REA 3 ECT AREA SITE CONTEXT SUB AREA 3 1 ► ► I _ _- - - - - -- \ -- - - -- -- M SC RR/A NP III 7 NOTAPART ��- M H I ►w II LL' NOT APART / � II , h M / II •a 10 ��� i \% I I I ► � I II EXHIBIT 3 STAG E I P D DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUB AREA 3 1. Project description: Development of the site with up to 437 dwellings at various densities and product types, a park, open spaces and roads. The project includes, re- grading of the site, installation of retaining walls and related improvements. Requested land use entitlements include amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, a PD rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan. Future land use approvals are anticipated to include a Site Development Review (SDR) permit and a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map(s). 2. Lead agency: City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 3. Contact persons: Michael A Porto Consulting Planner (925) 833 6610 4. Project location: Generally located between Central Parkway and Dublin Boulevard west of Fallon Road and east of Lockhart Street. Assessor's Parcel Number 985 -0027- 12 5. Project sponsor: 6. General Plan designation 7. Zoning: City of Dublin Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project Kevin Fryer of Integral Communities Existing: Medium Density Residential Medium/ High Density Residential Park Stream Corridor Open Space Proposed: Medium Density Residential Medium / High Density Residential Park Stream Corridor Rural residential/ Agriculture PD- Planned Development Page 13 January 2014 S. Other public agency required or potential approvals: • PD (Planned Development) rezoning with Stage 2 rezoning and Development Plan (City of Dublin) • Site Development Review (SDR) Permit (City of Dublin) • Vesting Tentative and Final Subdivision Maps (City of Dublin) • 1602/3 Streambed Alteration Permit (California Department of Fish and Game, possible); • State Incidental Take Permit (California Department of Fish and Game, possible); • Section 404 Permit including a Section 7 consultation (under the Endangered Species Act) from the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife (United States Army Corps of Engineers, possible); • Section 401 Clean Water Certification (San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, possible); • Notice of Intent (San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board); • Issuance of encroachment permits (City of Dublin) • Issuance of building and grading permits (City of Dublin); and • Approval of water and sewer connections (DSRSD) City of Dublin Page 14 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 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. Determination (to be completed by 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 the previous Negative Declaration certified for this project by the City of Dublin adequately addresses potential impacts. _ 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 although the proposed project may have a significant effect 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 earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report is required, but must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed. X I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be any new or substantially more severe significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects: a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR and ND pursuant to applicable standards; and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR and ND, including revisions or mitigation City of Dublin Page 15 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Aesthetics _ Agricultural - Air Quality _ Resources - Biological _ Cultural Resources - Geology / Soils Resources Hazards and - Hydrology/ Water _ Land Use/ _ Hazardous Quality Planning Materials - Mineral Resources -- Noise -- Population/ Housing -- Public Services _ Recreation - Transportation/ Circulation -- Utilities / Service - Mandatory Systems Findings of Significance Determination (to be completed by 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 the previous Negative Declaration certified for this project by the City of Dublin adequately addresses potential impacts. _ 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 although the proposed project may have a significant effect 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 earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report is required, but must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed. X I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be any new or substantially more severe significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects: a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR and ND pursuant to applicable standards; and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR and ND, including revisions or mitigation City of Dublin Page 15 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 measures that are imposed on the proposed Project, except for those impacts which were identified as significant and unavoidable and for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was previously adopted by the City. An Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report and the Dublin Ranch Planning Areas B -E Negative Declaration will be prepared. Signature: Printed Name: �_ City of Dublin Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project Date: X1111 It q For: l xf 6'h L�- Page 16 January 2014 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 parenthesis 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 factors (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less - than - significant with mitigation, or less -than- significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less - than - Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less- than - Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less -than- significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross - referenced). 5) 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). The checklist will include a response "no new impact" in these circumstances. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that were "Less- Than - Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. City of Dublin Page 17 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 6) Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances, etc.). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is a suggested form and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each agency should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question and the mitigation measures identified, if any, to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. City of Dublin Page 18 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist) Note: A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist. 1. Aesthetics. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Source: 1,3,4) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 1,3 ,4) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 6) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source: 1, 4) 2. Agricultural Resources Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non- agricultural use? (Source: 1,2,3) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 1,2,3) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to a non- agricultural use? (Source: 1,2,3) 3. Air Quality (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district may be relied on to make the following determinations). Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 1,4) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source: 2,3) City of Dublin Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact X X X X X X X X X Page 19 January 2014 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? (2,3.5) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Source: 2,3,4) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Source: 5) 4. Biological Resources. Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ?(Source: 2,3 ,4) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 2,3,4) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? (Source: Source: 2,3,4) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 2, 3,4) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree protection ordinances? (Source: 2, 3,4) City of Dublin Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact X X X X X X X X Page 20 January 2014 f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 1,3 ,4) 5. Cultural Resources. Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 2,3,5) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 2,3,5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, site or unique geologic feature? (Source: 2,3,5) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? (3) 6. Geology and Soils. Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Source: 2, 3) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (2, 6) iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? (2, 3) iv) Landslides? (2, 3) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Source: 2,3) c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards (Source: 2, 3) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Source: 2, 3) City of Dublin Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact X X X X X X X X X X X X Page 21 January 2014 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (Source: 1, 2) 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials (Source: 2, 3, 5) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Source: 2, 3, 5) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source: 2, 3, 4) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source: 5) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport of public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 2, 3) f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 2, 4) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source: 2, 3) City of Dublin Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact X X X X X X X X Page 22 January 2014 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 1,2,5) 8. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source: 2, 3 ) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (2,3) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (Source: 2,3) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (Source: 4, 5) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source: 5) IT) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Source: 3,5) g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? (Source: 5) City of Dublin Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact X X X X X X X X Page 23 January 2014 h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Source: 3,5) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, and death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (3) j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? (5) 9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Source: 1, 2, 3.4) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 1, 2, 3, 4) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (1,2,3,4) 10. Mineral Resources. Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Source: 1, 2) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general Plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Source: 1, 2) 11. Noise. Would the proposal result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (2,3) b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Source:2, 3) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the project? (2,3) City of Dublin Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact X X X X X X X X X X X Page 24 January 2014 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (2,3) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working n the project area to excessive noise levels? (2, 3) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 2,4) 12. Population and Housing. Would the project a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 2,4) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (4) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement of housing elsewhere? (Source: 4) 13. Public Services. Would the proposal: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? (Sources: 2,5) Fire protection Police protection Schools Parks Other public facilities Solid Waste City of Dublin Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact X X X X X X X X X X X X Page 25 January 2014 14. Recreation: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (Source: 2, 5) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 2, 5) 15. Transportation and Traffic. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersections)? (3,5) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways? (3,5) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (3,5) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm equipment? (5) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (5) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (5) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (such as bits turnouts and bicycle facilities) (1,2) City of Dublin Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact X X X X X X X X X Page 26 January 2014 16. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (2, 3) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (2,3) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (4,3) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing water entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (3) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? (5) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (5) g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (5) 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a) 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 wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number of 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? City of Dublin Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact X X X X X X X X Page 27 January 2014 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact X X Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts 1. Eastern General Plan Amendment /Specific Plan 2. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment /Specific Plan EIR 3 1997 Area B -E Negative Declaration 4. Discussion with City staff or service provider 5. Site Visit 6. Other Source XVII. Earlier Analyses a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this Initial Study refer to environmental information contained in the 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 91103064), hereinafter referred to as the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR is a Program EIR which was prepared for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan of which this Project is a part. It was certified by the Dublin City Council on May 10, 1993. Following certification of the EIR, the Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for impacts including but not limited to: cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service), regional air quality, noise and visual. The Eastern Dublin EIR reviewed transition of then vacant lands to urban uses over an approximately 20 -30 year time frame. For Subarea 3, the EIR assumed land uses and patterns similar to those shown on the current General Plan and EDSP maps, with the stream corridor and open space through the middle of the site and residential to the northeast (MHDR) and west/ southwest (MDR). City of Dublin Page 28 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a large number of mitigation measures which apply to this Project and which would be applied to any development within the Project area. Specific mitigation measures identified in the certified Eastern Dublin EIR for potential impacts are referenced in the text of this Initial Study. This Initial Study also relies on the Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch Areas B -E , adopted by the Dublin City Council on November 18,1997 through Resolution 140 -97. The ND assumed a mix of residential and open space uses consistent with the existing General Plan and EDSP designations. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, this Initial Study is intended to identify the potential for any new or substantially increased significant impacts on or of the project which were not evaluated in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 1997 ND and which would require additional environmental review. City of Dublin Page 29 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Attachment to Initial Study Discussion of Checklist 1. Aesthetics Environmental Setting The project is set in an a portion of Eastern Dublin that is transitioning to urban uses under the auspices of the City of Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin EIR, adopted in 1993. The project site is characterized by two small but distinct hills in the northern and central portions of the site that slope to the south and west. The hills are identified as "Visually Sensitive Hillsides - Restricted Development" in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (see EDSP Figure 6.3). A small watercourse exists in the northwest corner of the site. No dwellings exist on the site. No public parks, scenic vistas or scenic overlooks are located on the site. As a largely rural area, minimal light sources exist on the project site. Major light sources adjacent to the site include lights from Fallon Sports Park to the north, lights from the Groves residential complex to the west and lights from the commercial center to the south. Regulatory framework Dublin General Plan. -The project area is included in the Eastern Dublin Extended Planning Area. Implementing Policy C.2 of the General Plan states that "proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure ridgelands." Further, Implementing Policy C. 5 requires development projects to be consistent with all applicable General Plan and Specific Plan policies." Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The City of Dublin adopted the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) in 1993 to guide the future development of approximately 3,300 acres of land in the eastern Dublin area. The Specific Plan includes a number of policies and programs dealing with visual resources, including but not limited to protection of ridgelines and ridgelands, scenic corridors, and hillside development. As noted above, the two hills are classed as "Visually Sensitive Ridgelands- Restricted Development" Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated visual resource impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measure 3.8/1.0 reduced project impacts related to standardized tract development (IM 3.8/B) to a less- than - significant level. This mitigation requires City of Dublin Page 30 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 future developers to establish visually distinct communities which preserves the character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and maintaining views from major travel corridors. Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0 reduced the impact of converting the rural and open space character of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM 3.8/B) but not to a less - than - significant level. The mitigation measure requires implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant natural features. Even with adherence to this measure, IM 3.8/B would remain significant and unavoidable on both a project and cumulative level. • Mitigation Measure 3.8/3.0 would reduce the impact of obscuring distinctive natural features of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM 3.8/ C) but not to a less -than- significant level. The mitigation measure requires implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant natural features. Mitigation Measures 3.8/4.0 -4.5 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality of hillsides (IM 3.8/D) to a less- than - significant level. These mitigation measures require implemtation of appropriate Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies including but not limited to use of sensitive grading design to minimize grading, use of existing topographic features, limiting use of flat pads for construction, using building designs that conform to natural land forms, recontouring hillside to resemble existing topography and minimizing the height of cut and fill slopes. Mitigation Measures 3.8/5.0 -5.2 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality of ridges (IM 3.8/ E) to a less- than - significant level. These mitigation measures limit development on main ridges that border the Specific Plan area to the north and east but are allowed on foreground hills, and would limit development in locations where scenic views would be obscured or would extend above a ridgetop. • IM 3.8/F analyzed alteration of the visual character of the Eastern Dublin flatlands. No mitigation measures were identified and the impact was identified as significant and unavoidable. • Mitigation Measure 3.8/ 6.0 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality of watercourses (IM 3.8/G) to a less- than - significant level. This mitigation measure protects Tassajara Creek and other stream courses from unnecessary alteration or disturbance, and adjoining development should be sited to maintain visual access to stream corridors. • Mitigation Measures 3.8/7.0 and 7/1 reduced impacts on scenic vistas (IM 3.8/I) to a less - than - significant level. These mitigation measures require protection of designated open space areas and directs the City to conduct a visual survey of the EDSP area to identify and map viewsheds. City of Dublin Page 31 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 1997 ND. The 1997 ND updated the prior EDEIR analysis on aesthetics and visual resources and referenced a visual study prepared for the Area B -E project that identified refinements in project design to help address visual impacts. No additional potentially significant aesthetic impacts or mitigation measures were identified in the 1997 ND. The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures related to aesthetics set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Project Impacts a,b) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista or substantially damage scenic resources, including adjacent to a state scenic highway? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies that implementation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would result in a potentially significant impact (Impact 3.8/I), development on the project area [i.e. the Eastern Dublin planning area] will alter the character of existing scenic vistas and may obscure important sightlines). Adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.8/ 7.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR reduced this impact to a less- than - significant impact. This measure requires the City to complete a visual assessment and guidelines for the Eastern Dublin area. The proposed project would include removing one hill area and relocating the southwestern hill to the south. The southwest facing slope of the retained hill would be planted with native grasses and vegetation to retain an open space appearance. This would screen proposed residential development on the north side of the hill from passersby on the I -580 corridor. The existing stream corridor on the western portion of the site would remain and be preserved as part of the proposed development. All of the mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the visual policies contained in the EDSP will apply to this project. No new or more severe impacts with respect to scenic vistas or scenic resources adjacent to a state scenic highway would occur than previously analyzed. No further analysis is required. C) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? No New Impact. The proposed project includes the consideration of a development plan on Subarea 3 of the Dublin Ranch. Aesthetic impacts would include disturbance of existing vegetation, grading of building pads and roads and construction of a mix of housing units where none now exist. The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the following potential impacts related to visual and aesthetics impacts of adopting the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan: Impact 3.8/13: Urban development of the project site will substantially alter the existing rural and open space qualities that characterize Eastern Dublin The Eastern Dublin EIR identified one measure to mitigate this impact (Mitigation Measure 3.8/ 2.0, "Implement the land use plan for the project site which emphasizes retention of predominant natural features... "). Both the approved and current development plans on the project site would adhere to City of Dublin Page 32 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 this mitigation measure by preserving on -site natural features (stream corridor and relocated hill). However the Eastern Dublin EIR concluded that even with adherence to this mitigation, alteration of rural and open space on the project site would remain a potentially significant impact. The proposed project would include grading and recontouring of a portion of the site, including one of the visually sensitive hillside areas to facilitate development on the project site. The proposed development plan would retain the south facing slope of the hillside as natural open space as required by the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR addresses the impact of visual change in the character or quality of portions of Eastern Dublin and included mitigation measures that reduced this impact to a less- than - significant level. No new or more severe impacts have been identified in this Initial Study with respect to this topic and no further analysis is required. d) Create light or glare? No New Impact. The 1997 ND identified this impact as less than significant. The project site contains minimal light sources and construction of the proposed project would add additional light sources in the form of streetlights along exterior and interior roadways as well as building and security lighting. The project area is in the process of transitioning to urban development. City of Dublin development requirements will be imposed as part of the normal and customary standard conditions to restrict spillover of unwanted light off of the project site once SDR and tentative map development applications are submitted. No new or more significant impacts would result with respect to light and glare than has been previously analyzed in previous EIR and ND and no additional analysis is required. 2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources Environmental Setting The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies the project site as a combination of "locally important farmland" and "other lands," (see EDSP Figure 3.1 -13). Although it is likely that the site was historically used for grazing or other agricultural operations no agricultural operations have been observed on the project site during the preparation of this Initial Study. Figure 3.1 -C contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR notes that a Williamson Act contract was previously in force on the site, but was non - renewed as of 1993 and has since expired. No other Williamson Act contracted properties exist on the site. No forests or major stands of trees exist on the site. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified several potential impacts related to agricultural resources. Impact IM 3.1 / C stated that discontinuation of agricultural uses would be an insignificant impact due to on -going urbanization trends in Dublin City of Dublin Page 33 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 and the Tri- Valley area. Impact 3.1 / D identified a loss of lands of Farmlands of Local Importance with approval and implementation of the General Plan and Specific Plan. This was also noted as an insignificant impact. Impact 3.1 / F stated that buildout of Specific Plan land uses would have a significant and unavoidable impact on cumulative loss of agricultural and open space lands. Finally, Impact IM 3.1 / E noted indirect impacts related to non - renewal of Williamson Act contracts. This impact was also identified as an insignificant impact. 1997 ND. No additional impacts to agricultural resources were identified in this document. Pro -ect Impacts a,c) Convert prime farmland to a non- agricultural use or involve other changes which could result in conversion of farmland to a non - agricultural use? No New Impact. No significant impacts were identified with respect to agricultural resources in previous CEQA documents listed above other than the cumulative loss of agricultural and open space lands. The EDEIR assumed the project site would be urbanized. No new conditions have been identified in this Initial Study with respect to conversion of prime farmland to a non - agricultural use and no new or more severe impacts would result than were analyzed in previous EIR and ND and no additional analysis is required. The proposed project would continue to contribute to cumulative loss of agricultural land and open space, which was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.1 / F). b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No New Impact. The City of Dublin has zoned the project site for a mix of residential uses, open spaces and a stream corridor. No Williamson Act contracts presently exist on the site nor are any agricultural operations on- going. No new or more severe impacts would result than have been previously analyzed in previous EIR and ND and no additional analysis is required. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to a non forest use? No Impact. No forest land exists on the project site and no impact would result with respect to this topic. e) Involve other changes which, due to their location or nature, could result of forest land to a non forest use? No Impact. See item "d," above. 3. Air Quality Environmental Setting The project is within the Amador Valley, a part of the Livermore sub - regional air basin distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Livermore sub -air basin is surrounded on all sides by high hills or mountains. Significant breaks in the hills City of Dublin Page 34 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon and the San Ramon Valley, which extends northward into Contra Costa County. Previous EIRs Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated air quality impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measures 3.11/1.0 reduced construction dust deposition impacts but not to a level of less than significant. MM 3.11 / 1.0 requires development projects to implement dust control measures. Even with these measures, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable Mitigation Measures 3.11 / 2.0 -4.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts related to vehicle emission from construction equipment (IM 3.11/B) but not to a less - than- significant level. These mitigations require emission control from on -site equipment, completion of a construction impact reduction plan and others. Even with adherence to these mitigations, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. • Mitigation Measures 3.11/5.0-11.0 reduced mobile source emission from ROG and NOx (IM 3.11 / C) but not to a less- than - significant level. Mitigation measures require coordination of growth with transportation plans and other measures, many of which are at a policy (not a project) level. Even with adherence to adopted mitigations, IM 3.11 / C would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures 3.11/12.0-13.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts related to stationary source emissions (IM 3.11 / E) but not to a less -than- significant level. The two adopted mitigations require reduction of stationary source emissions to the extent feasible by use of energy conservation techniques and recycling of solid waste material. Even with adherence to the two measures, stationary source emissions would remain significant and unavoidable. 1997 ND. No additional air quality impacts or mitigation measures were included in the 1997 ND. The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures related to air quality. Protect Impacts a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? No New Impact. The amount of development proposed on the site would be less than previously considered and approved by the City of Dublin. Approved uses on the project site includes up to 485 dwellings with a mix of attached and detached dwellings which has been incorporated into the Regional Clean Air Plan. If approved, the proposed project would allow development of up to 437 dwellings with approximately the same mix of attached and detached dwellings and would City of Dublin Page 35 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 represent a decrease of 47 dwellings. Therefore, approval and implementation of the proposed project would represent a substantial dwelling unit decrease on the site and would not conflict with or obstruct the regional Clean Air Plan. No new or more significant impacts would result than was previously analyzed in prior CEQA documents. No further analysis is required. b,c) Would the project violate any air quality standards or result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? No New Impact. Air quality impacts of development of the Eastern Dublin Planning area were analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR. The EIR found that future development of the Eastern Dublin area, including the proposed project, would contribute to the cumulative impacts related to dust deposition, construction equipment emissions, mobile source emissions and stationary source emissions and would exceed air quality standards. These impact (Impacts (IM / 3.11 / A, B, C and E) were was found to be significant and unavoidable when the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was approved. Since the proposed project is consistent with or lower than the number of dwellings anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR there would be no new or more severe impact with respect to violation of air quality standards than has been previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 1997 ND, and no additional analysis is required. d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors? No New Impact. No New Impact. No schools exist or are planned within or adjacent to the project area, so no impacts would result. Similarly, the site is not located adjacent to any freeways that would release significant air emissions, and in any case, the number of dwelling would decrease from the past approval. Since the proposed project does not include manufacturing or similar uses, no objectionable odors would be created. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified mobile source and stationary source emissions as potentially significant cumulative impacts which could not be mitigated to achieve the necessary reduction in source emissions needed to meet the insignificant threshold and, pursuant to CEQA, the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration for these impacts. Reducing the number of dwellings from the previous approval means fewer people will be exposed to pollutant emissions, but the impacts would still be significant. No new or more severe impacts are identified in this Initial Study beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 1997 ND. 4. Biological Resources Environmental Setting The following analysis is based on a Biological Resources Assessment prepared for the site by the firm of WRA Environmental Consultants dated November 20, 2013. This report is hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. City of Dublin Page 36 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 The project site is an undeveloped area located in an urbanizing portion of the Eastern Dublin. The site contains the following biological communities as identified in the WRA report: • Non -native annual grasslands • Disturbed and developed • Mixed riparian forest • Cattail marsh • Seasonal wetlands • Freshwater marsh The seasonal wetland, marsh and mixed riparian portions of the site are located in the approximate center of the site. This area also includes re- vegetated habitat that represents mitigation for loss of sensitive habitat elsewhere within the Dublin Ranch area elsewhere in Eastern Dublin. Special- status (protected) plant species identified on the site include areas containing Congdon's tarplant and San Joaquin spearscale. A number of special- status wildlife species were observed on the Subarea 3 site, including northern harrier and white - tailed kite. Although not observed on the project in the recent biological assessment, a number of special- status wildlife species have the potential to occur on the site, including American badger, burrowing owl and loggerhead shrike. A number of trees are found on the site within the mixed riparian forest habitat area. Tree species include valley oak, box elder and willows. ReL,ulatory framework California Fish and Wildlife Code Section 1600. Streams, lakes, and riparian vegetation as habitat for fish and other wildlife species, are subject to jurisdiction by CDFW under Sections 1600 -1616 of the California Fish and Game Code. Any activity that will do one or more of the following: 1) substantially obstruct or divert the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; 2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or 3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a river, stream, or lake; generally require a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. The term "stream," which includes creeks and rivers, is defined in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) as follows: "a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation. In addition, the term stream can include ephemeral streams, dry washes, watercourses with subsurface flows, canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream- dependent terrestrial wildlife. Riparian is defined as, "on, or pertaining to, the banks of a stream;" therefore, riparian City of Dublin Page 37 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 vegetation is defined as, "vegetation, which occurs in and/ or adjacent to a stream and is dependent on, and occurs because of, the stream itself." Removal of riparian vegetation also requires a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Corps regulatory and permitting authority regarding discharge of dredged or fill material into "navigable waters of the United States." Section 502(7) of the Clean Water Act defines navigable waters as "waters of the United States, including territorial seas." Section 328 of Chapter 33 in the Code of Federal Regulations defines the term "waters of the United States" as it applies to the jurisdictional limits of the authority of the Corps under the Clean Water Act. A summary of this definition of "waters of the U.S." in 33 CFR 328.3 includes (1) waters used for commerce; (2) interstate waters and wetlands; (3) "other waters" such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands; (4) impoundments of waters; (5) tributaries to the above waters; (6) territorial seas; and (7) wetlands adjacent to waters. Therefore, for purposes of determining Corps jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, "navigable waters" as defined in the Clean Water Act are the same as "waters of the U.S." defined in the Code of Federal Regulations above. The limits of Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 as given in 33 CFR Section 328.4 are as follows: (a) Territorial seas: three nautical miles in a seaward direction from the baseline; (b) Tidal waters of the U.S.: high tide line or to the limit of adjacent non -tidal waters; (c) Non -tidal waters of the U.S.: ordinary high water mark or to the limit of adjacent wetlands; (d) Wetlands: to the limit of the wetland. Some areas that meet the technical criteria for wetlands or waters may not be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act. Included in this category are some man - induced wetlands, which are areas that have developed at least some characteristics of naturally occurring wetlands due to either intentional or incidental human activities. Examples of man - induced wetlands may include, but are not limited to, irrigated wetlands, impoundments, or drainage ditches excavated in uplands, dredged material disposal areas, and depressions within construction areas. In addition, some isolated wetlands and waters may also be considered outside of Corps jurisdiction as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (531 U.S. 159 (2001)). Isolated wetlands and waters are those areas that do not have a surface or groundwater connection to, and are not adjacent to a "navigable waters of the U.S. ", and do not otherwise exhibit an interstate commerce connection. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge of a pollutant into waters of the United States to obtain a certification from the state in which the discharge originates or would originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water pollution control agency having jurisdiction over the affected waters at the point where the discharge originates or would originate, that the discharge will comply with the applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards. A certification obtained for the construction of any facility must also pertain City of Dublin Page 38 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 to the subsequent operation of the facility. The responsibility for the protection of water quality in California rests with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). Federal and California Endangered Species Acts. The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 prohibits federal agencies from authorizing, permitting, or funding any action that would jeopardize the continued existence of a plant or animal species listed or a candidate for listing as Threatened or Endangered under the ESA. If a federal agency is involved with a proposed action or project that may adversely affect a listed plant or animal, that agency must enter into consultation with the USFWS under Section 7 (a) (2) of the FESA. Individuals, corporations, and state or local agencies with proposed actions or projects that do not require authorizing, permitting, or funding from a federal agency but that may result in the "take" of listed species or candidate species are required to apply to the USFWS for a Section 10(a) incidental take permit. The State of California enacted similar laws to the FESA, the California Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) in 1977 and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) in 1984. The CESA expanded upon the original NPPA and enhanced legal protection for plants, but the NPPA remains part of the California Fish and Game Code. To align with the FESA, CESA created the categories of "threatened" and "endangered" species. The State converted all animal species listed as "rare" under the FESA into the CESA as threatened species, but did not do so for rare plants. Thus, these laws provide the legal framework for protection of California - listed rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species. CDFW implements NPPA and CESA, and its Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch maintain the CNDDB, a computerized inventory of information on the general location and status of California's rarest plants, animals, and natural communities. During the CEQA review process, CDFW is given the opportunity to comment on the potential of the proposed project to affect listed plants and animals. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. The project site is located in the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy ( "Conservation Strategy ") Study Area. The Conservation Strategy is intended to provide an effective framework to protect, enhance, and restore natural resources in eastern Alameda County, while improving and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts resulting from infrastructure and development projects. The City of Dublin is a partner in the Conservation Strategy and uses the document to provide a baseline inventory of biological resources and conservation priorities during project -level planning and environmental permitting. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts to biological resources from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measures 3.7/1.0-4.0 reduced impacts related to direct habitat loss (IM 3.7/ A) to a less - than - significant level. These mitigations require minimization of direct habitat loss due to development, preparation of City of Dublin Page 39 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 vegetation management and enhancement plans and development of a grazing management plan by the City of Dublin. • Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0 reduced impacts related to indirect loss of vegetation removal (IM 3.7/B) to a less- than - significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0 requires revegetation of graded or disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0 -17.0 reduced impacts related to loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitats (IM 3.7/ C) but not to a less - than - significant level. These measures require a wide range of steps to be taken by future developers to minimize impacts to sensitive habitat areas, including preserving natural stream corridors, incorporating natural greenbelts and open space into development projects, preparation of individual wetland delineations, preparation of individual erosion and sedimentation plans and similar actions. • Mitigation Measures 3.7/18.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to the San Joaquin kit fox (IM 3.7/D) to a less- than - significant level. These measures require consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies regarding the possibility of kit fox on project sites and restrictions on use of pesticides and herbicides. • Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0 -22.0 reduced impacts related to the red - legged frog, California tiger salamander, western pond turtle and tri- colored blackbird (IM 3.7 /F -I) to a less- than - significant level. These measures require preconstruction surveys for the species and protection of impacted habitat areas. • Mitigation Measures 3.7/23.0 -24.0 reduced impacts related to destruction of Golden Eagle nesting sites (IM 3.7/J) to a less - than - significant level. These measures require preconstruction surveys for this species and protection of impacted habitat areas. • Mitigation Measure 3.7/25.0 reduced impacts related to loss of Golden Eagle foraging habitat (IM 3.7/K) to a less- than - significant level. This measure requires the identification of a Golden Eagle protection zone within the Eastern Dublin planning area. • Mitigation Measure 3.7/26.0 reduced impacts related to Golden Eagle and other raptor electrocution (IM 3.7/L) to a less- than - significant level. This measure requires undergrounding of electrical transmission facilities. • Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0 to 27.0 reduced impacts related to burrowing owl and American badger (IM 3.7/M, N) to a less- than - significant level. This measure mandates preconstruction surveys and a minimum buffer of 300 feet around burrowing owl nesting sites and American badger breeding sites during the breeding season. • Mitigation Measure 3.7/28.0 reduced impacts related to special status invertebrates (IM 3.7 / S) to a less - than - significant level. This measure requires follow -on special surveys for these species during appropriate times of the year. City of Dublin Page 40 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 The Eastern Dublin EIR also addresses potential impacts and mitigation measures regarding bald eagle, peregrine falcons, red - legged frog, California tiger salamander, western pond turtle the prairie falcon, northern harrier, black - shouldered kite, sharp - shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, short -eared owl and California horned lizard. 1997 ND. The 1997 ND updated species surveys since the EDEIR but did not identify any additional potentially significant impacts or mitigation measures related to biological resources. The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable biological resource mitigation measures adopted through the Eastern Dublin approvals, as applicable to the site. Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR documents the presence of special - status plant and wildlife species within the general project area. Numerous mitigation measures are included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce impacts to candidate, sensitive and special - status species to a less -than significant level. These are listed above and continue to apply to the proposed project, as applicable. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts with respect to candidate, sensitive or special- status species would occur than have been analyzed in the two previous CEQA documents and no additional analysis is required. The proposed project would continue to contribute to cumulative loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat, which was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact (IM 3.7/ C) in the Eastern Dublin EIR. b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands? No New Impact. Wetlands and waters of the United States have been identified on the project site. Mitigation measures have been included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce such impacts to a less - than - significant level. The proposed development plan (see Exhibit 3) shows that the existing wetlands, marsh areas and other biologically sensitive areas within that have been incorporated into a stream corridor areas that is protected and preserved. The Comprehensive Biological Management Plan shall also address impacts and updates to previous mitigation measures to ensure long -term protection of riparian habitat, wetlands and other waters. No new or more severe impacts would occur than have been previously analyzed with respect to this topic. No additional analysis is required. d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? No New Impact. As assumed in the EDEIR and the 1997 ND, the project continues to provide open space area along and past a designated stream corridor. This ensures that there continues to be an opportunity for wildlife and fish species movement within the Eastern Dublin context of gradual urbanization over time. Mitigation measures contained in the EDEIR address protections for wildlife and fish species in areas not anticipated for future development. The project would be required to City of Dublin Page 41 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 implement these adopted mitigations, as applicable. No new or more severe impacts would occur than have been previously analyzed with respect to potential interference with fish or wildlife movement and no additional analysis is required. e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? No New Impact. Approval and construction of the proposed project could affect native oak trees and other trees species on the site. The City of Dublin affords Heritage Tree status to any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye, or sycamore tree with a main trunk of at least twenty -four inches in diameter when measured at fifty -two inches above the natural grade; trees required for preservation under an approved development plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development review, or subdivision map; and trees planted as replacements for unlawfully removed trees. Permits are required for the removal of any Heritage Tree. Any Heritage Trees that are proposed for removal must be identified in future Stage 2 Development Plans, Site Development Review and Subdivision applications. Conditions regarding replacement of trees will be considered at that time. Approval of a development plan, zoning permit, site development review, or subdivision map that specifies tree removal will meet the requirements for Heritage Tree removal permitting. Additionally, a Heritage Tree Protection Plan may be required prior to issuance of permits for grading, or building unless a certified arborist has confirmed that the activities would be outside of the ground area of the drip -line of the trees and the area immediately surrounding the drip - line. The project site lies within the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy ( EACCS) planning area. The City of Dublin utilizes the Conservation Strategy as guidance for environmental permitting for public projects, and private development projects are encouraged to use the EACCS as a resource as well. The Conservation Strategy embodies a regional approach to permitting and mitigation for wildlife habitat impacts associated with land development, infrastructure, and other activities. The Conservation Strategy is neither a Habitat Conservation Plan nor a Natural Community Conservation Plan, but is a document intended to provide guidance during the project planning and permitting process to ensure that impacts are offset in a biologically effective manner. In any case, the project remains subject to all adopted biological resource mitigations, as applicable. As there is no previous or existing habitat conservation plan for the site, there would therefore be no new or significantly more severe impacts with respect to this topic than previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and no additional analysis is required. City of Dublin Page 42 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 5. Cultural Resources Environmental Setting Potentially historic structures. The site is vacant and contains no structures. The Eastern Dublin EIR did not identify any significant historic structures on the project site. Underground cultural resources. The Eastern Dublin EIR did not identify the presence of archeological or paleontological cultural resources on the project site. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts to cultural resources from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0-4.0 reduced impacts related to disruption or destruction of identified prehistoric resources (IM 3.9/A) to a less -than- significant level. These mitigations mandate a program of mechanical and/or hand subsurface testing for the presence or absence of midden deposits, recordation of identified midden sites, collection and /or testing of resources and development of a site - specific protection program for prehistoric sites. • Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 -6.0 reduced impacts related to the disruption or destruction of unrecorded prehistoric resources (IM 3.9B) to a less -than- significant level. Mitigation Measures 3.9/7.0 -12.0 reduced impacts related to disruption or destruction of identified historic resources to a less- than - significant level (Impact 3.9/Q. These measures would include preparing site - specific archival research for individual resources, encourage adaptive reuse of historic resources, recordation of historic sites on local state and federal registers, as appropriate and development of preservation programs for significant resources. The adopted EDEIR measures largely implemented then - Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines. Appendix K has since been replaced by CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5, which addresses historic and archeological resources, including human remains; similarly, EDEIR references to Appendix K have been replaced with section 15064.5 in the discussions below. 1997 ND. The 1997 ND did not identify any additional potentially significant impacts or mitigation measures with respect to cultural resources. The proposed project will be required to comply with the applicable EDSP EIR cultural resource mitigation measures. City of Dublin rage 43 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Project Impacts a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? No New Impact. No historic resources have been identified in the project area in the Eastern Dublin EIR. No residences or other structures exist on the site so no historic structures are present. No new or more severe supplemental impacts have therefore been identified for the proposed project than were disclosed in previous CEQA documents and no additional review is required. b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or paleontological resources? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies a remote but potentially significant possibility that construction activities, including site grading, trenching and excavation, may uncover significant archeological and/or paleontological resources on development sites. The Eastern Dublin EIR categorized these resources as pre- historic cultural resources. None of these pre- historic sites were identified by the EIR within near the project site. The Eastern Dublin EIR assumed that all pre- historic sites would be disturbed or altered in some manner. This potential impact was identified and addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.9 / A) and mitigation measures 3.9 / 1.0 through 3.9 / 4.0 (page 3.9 -6 — 3.9 -7) that require subsurface testing for archeological resources; recordation and mapping of such resources; and development of a protection program for resources which qualify as "significant" under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0, described above, also were adopted to address the potential disruption of any previously unidentified pre- historic resources and would apply to the project as may be appropriate. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies (Policies 6 -24 and 6 -25) requiring research of archaeological resources prior to construction and determination of the significance and extent of any resources uncovered during grading and construction. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to cultural resources have been identified that have been previously analyzed in the EDEIR and 1997 ND and no additional analysis is required. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a forfnal cemetery? No New Impact. Existing cultural resource mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR through Appendix K/ section 15064.5 reduced impacts to human remains to a less- than - significant level. No new or more severe significant impacts with respect to human remains are anticipated beyond those previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. City of Dublin Page 44 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 6. Geology and Soils Environmental Setting Geology and soils. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that site soils are largely composed of undifferentiated alluvial deposits (EDSP Exhibit 3.6 -C). The EDSP further notes that alluvium soils are characterized by crudely stratified Quaternary stream deposits of sand, silt and clay. Landslide potential. Portions of the site have moderate to steep slopes. Although some of the hillsides would be re- graded to allow for development, there is a potential for landslide on the site. Seismic hazard. The project area does not lie within an Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly Alquist - Priolo Special Studies Zone) (see Exhibit 3.6 -B contained in the EDSP EIR). Major active faults in the region that influence earthquake susceptibility include the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, and Greenville Faults. The site is subject to strong ground shaking in the event of seismic activity, consistent with all of the Bay area. Tsunami and seiche hazards. The risk of damage to future improvements on the site from a tsunami or seiche is low due to the inland location of the site. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts related to Soils, Geology and Seismicity from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 reduced impacts related to primary effects of earthquake ground shaking (IM 3.6/B) but not to a less- than - significant level. This mitigation measure requires that future structure and infrastructure facilities be designed to applicable local and state building codes. Mitigation Measures 3.9 / 2.0 -7.0 reduced impacts related to the secondary effects of earthquake ground shaking (IM 3.9/ C) to a less- than - significant level. Mitigation measures mandate building setbacks from landslides, stabilization of unstable land forms, removal and reconstruction of unstable soils, use of engineered retaining structures, use of appropriately designed and engineered fill, and design of structures to account of potential soil failure. • Mitigation Measures 3.6/9.0-10.0 reduced impacts related to substantial alteration to landforms to a less -than significant level (IM 3.6/D). Mitigations require grading plans with minimal cuts and fills and careful siting of homes and improvements to avoid excessive grading. • Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0-16.0 reduced impacts related to expansive soils (IM 3.6/H) to a less- than - significant level. Mitigation measures require formulation City of Dublin Page 45 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 of site - specific designs to overcome expansive soils, reducing the amount of moisture in the soil and by appropriate foundation and pavement design. Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0 -19.0 reduced impacts related to natural slope stability (IM 3.6 / I) to a less- than - significant level. Mitigation measures mandate formulation of use of site - specific designs based on follow -on geotechnical reviews of individual developments, limiting the location of improvements on downslopes of unstable soils, removal/ reconstruction of potentially unstable slope areas and installation of surface and subsurface slope drainage improvements. Mitigation Measures 3.6 / 20.0 -26.0 reduced impacts related to cut and fill slope stability (IM 3.6 / J) to a less- than - significant level. These measures include developing grading plans for hillside areas that minimize grading and associate cuts and fills, ensuring that grading plans comply with appropriate building codes, utilizing keys and benches as part of grading to ensure slope stability and minimizing use of unreinforced fill slopes, appropriate compaction of fill areas and on -going maintenance of slope drainage areas. • Mitigation Measure 3.6 / 27.0 reduced the impact related to short -term construction- related erosion and sedimentation (IM 3.6/K) to a less -than- significant level. This measure includes limiting timing of construction to avoid the rainy season and implementing a number of other specific erosion control measures. • Mitigation Measure 3.6 / 28.0 reduced the impact related to long -term erosion and sedimentation (IM 3.6 / L) to a less- than - significant level. This measure includes installation of erosion control facilities into individual development projects, including sediment catch basins, creek bank stabilization, revegetation of graded areas and similar measures. 1997 ND. The 1997 ND updated geotechnical investigations for Dublin Ranch since the EDEIR. No supplemental impacts or mitigation measures were identified in this ND. The proposed project will be required to comply with applicable EDSP EIR soil, geologic and seismic mitigation measures. Pro -ject Impacts a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or landslides? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified that the primary and secondary effects of ground - shaking (Impacts 3.6 / B and 3.6 / Q could be potentially significant impacts. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6 / 1.0 the primary effects of ground - shaking are reduced but not to a less -than- significant level by using modern seismic design for resistance to lateral forces in construction, which would reduce the potential for structure failure, major structural damage and loss of life. A site - specific geotechnical report will be prepared by the applicant as part of future development applications, consistent City of Dublin Page 46 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 with the EDEIR mitigations and as required by the City of Dublin for all residential development projects. The site - specific report will identify construction techniques, such as special footings and use of appropriate building materials, to ensure that project improvements are consistent with City and State building code requirements related to ground shaking, landslides, ground failure and other geologic hazards. No new or more severe significant impacts with respect to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure or landslides are anticipated than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and /or the loss of topsoil? No New Impact. Construction of the proposed project improvements on the site would modify the existing ground surface and alter patterns of surface runoff and infiltration and could result in a short -term increase in erosion and sedimentation caused by grading activities (Impact 3.6/K). Long -term impacts could result from modification of the ground- surface and removal of existing vegetation (Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.6/Q. The project is required to implement grading and erosion controls through Mitigation Measures 3.6/ 27.0 and 28.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains a policy (Policy 6 -43), which requires that new development be designed to provide effective control of soil erosion as a result of construction activities. This policy will be applied to the proposed project. With adherence to previous mitigation measures, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts than have been previously analyzed in the EDEIR and 1997 ND and no additional analysis is required. c,d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? No New Impact. Consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.6/7.0 and standard City development conditions, the project developer will be will be required to retain a licensed geologist or equivalent to prepare a site - specific soils and geotechnical report for future Stage 2 Development Plan, SDR and tentative map applications. The report will be required to contain detailed methods to minimize impacts from shrink -swell and/or lateral spreading potential for future site improvements should these conditions be found on the site. EDEIR Mitigation Measures 3.6 / 9.0 -10.0 will also be implemented to prepare detailed development plans with consideration of hillside conditions so as to avoid landslide potential. With adherence to the Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies, no new or more severe impacts have been identified related to lateral spreading, liquefaction and other soil hazards than have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents; no additional analysis is required. e) Have soils incapable of supporting on -site septic tanks if sewers are not available? No New Impact. Proposed residences on the site would be connected to sanitary City of Dublin Page 47 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 sewers provided by DSRSD, so there would be no new or more severe impacts with regard to septic systems. 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Setting Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993 and follow -on CEQA documents, the issue of contribution of greenhouse gasses to climate change has become a more prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of AB 32 in 2006. On March 18, 2010, amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines took effect which set forth requirements for the analysis of greenhouse gasses. The topic of the project's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change was not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 1997 ND. Since the Eastern Dublin EIR and ND have been certified, the determination of whether greenhouse gasses and climate change needs to be analyzed for this proposed project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code section 21166 and Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163). Greenhouse gas and climate change is not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete" (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3).) Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts is not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified and the 1997 ND approved. The issue of climate change and greenhouse gasses was widely known prior to these actions. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. In the early and mid 2000s, GHGs and climate change were extensively discussed and analyzed in California. In 2000, SB 1771 established the California Climate Action Registry for the recordation of greenhouse gas emissions to provide information about potential environmental impacts. In 2005, the Governor issued Executive Order # S -03 -05 establishing greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in California. AB 32 was adopted in 2006. Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change was known at the time of the certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in May 1993 and the approval of the ND in 1997. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or negative declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of the project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA. Project Impacts a,b Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? As discussed above, no additional environmental analysis is required under CEQA Section 21166. 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials (This section of the Initial Study is based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Haley & Aldrich, Inc. in April 2012 ("Report on ASTM Phase I City of Dublin Page 48 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Environmental Site Assessment, Dublin Ranch Property, Subarea 3, Dublin California. ") This document is incorporated into this Initial Study by reference and is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. Environmental Setting The Phase I analysis prepared by Haley & Aldrich did not identify any recognized environmental conditions on the project site. No recommendations were made in the Phase I report that would result in any remediation on the site. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. This topic was not directly analyzed in the EIR; however, hazards impacts were identified in Chapter 3.4 (fire and police emergency response, wildfire hazards). 1997 ND. The ND discussed a Phase I site assessment of Areas B -E prepared since the EDEIR. No problem sites were identified and no significant impacts were expected from use of small quantities of paints, pesticides, and other similar substances typical of urban non - industrial uses. The ND also stated there was no significant risk of explosion or accidental hazardous substance release. No additional significant impacts or mitigation measures dealing with hazards or hazardous materials were included in this document. Project Impacts a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? No New Impact. There would be no impact with regard to transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, since the proposed project involves construction of a residential development on the site. There would be no use, storage or transport of significant quantities of hazardous materials associated with the proposed development. No new or more severe impacts would therefore occur on the site than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No New Impact. Based on the discussion in subsection "a," above, no new or more severe impacts are anticipated with respect to the release of hazardous materials than were analyzed in the 1997 ND and no additional analysis is required. c) Ernit hazardous materials or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. Approval and implementation of the proposed project would have no impact with regard to this topic, since no schools exist or are planned near the project area. No new or more severe impact would occur with respect to emission or handling of hazardous materials within one - quarter of an existing or planned school and no additional analysis is required. City of Dublin Page 49 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? No New Impact. The 1997 ND reported that none of Areas B -E were included on a list of hazardous waste and substance sites. No properties comprising the project area are listed on the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control as an identified hazardous site as of November 14, 2013. There is therefore no new or more severe impacts impact with respect to this topic than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? No New Impact. The project site lies within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the Livermore Municipal Airport and would therefore requires review by the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). A portion of the existing Open Space land use designation lies within the Airport Protection Area and would be redesignated as Rural Residential/ Agricultural (RRA) however no residential uses would be permitted consistent with the development limitations for the APA. All other permitted and conditional uses within the proposed RRA land use designation have been reviewed for consistency with the current Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The EDEIR discussed the potential for land use incompatibilities with respect to the airport, but identified the impact as less than significant based on the land uses being consistent with the requirements and policies of the designated areas (Impact 3.1/H). The project proposes the same type and general location of residential and open space uses but continues to limit development in the APA area. Therefore, there would not be a new or more severe impact since ALUC review for development projects was included in the Eastern Dublin EIR and this project has been reviewed by the ALUC and found to be consistent with the current ALUCP; no additional analysis is required. g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? No New Impact. The proposed project would include the construction of a residential project on private land. No emergency evacuation plan would be affected since no roadways would be blocked. No new or more severe impacts would result than have been previously analyzed. h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No New Impact. The project site is located in a partially developed area with residential development existing to the west (The Groves). A City park has been partially constructed to the north (Fallon Sports Park) and a commercial development to the south. Property to the east, on the east side of Fallon Road, is vacant. The project proposes a similar type and scale of development as assumed in the EDEIR and 1997 ND, and is subject to mitigation measures for Impact 3.4/E contained in Eastern Dublin EIR and to the City's Wildfire Management Plan (updated in 2002). No new or more severe significant impacts related to wildland fire hazards are anticipated beyond those in the prior EIR and ND and no additional analysis is required. City of Dublin Page 50 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 9. Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Setting Local surface water. The project site is located within the Alameda Creek watershed which drains to the San Francisco Bay via the Arroyo Del Valle and Arroyo de la Laguna. A small stream flows in a northwest - southeast direction through the project area. The project area is located within the jurisdiction of Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). Zone 7 provides maintenance of regional drainage facilities within this portion of Alameda County. Surface water quality. Water quality in California is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which controls the discharge of pollutants to water bodies from point and non -point sources. In the San Francisco Bay area, this program is administered by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Federal regulations issued in November 1990 expanded the authority of the RWQCB to include permitting of stormwater discharges from municipal storm sewer systems, industrial processes, and construction sites that disturb areas larger than one acre of land area. The City of Dublin is a co- permittee of the Alameda County Clean Water Program, which is a coordinated effort by local governments in Alameda County to improve water quality in San Francisco Bay. Flooding. The project site lies outside of a 100 -year flood hazard area (Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 06001C0328G). Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts related to hydrology and storm drainage from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0-48 reduced impacts related potential flooding (IM 3.5 / Y) to a less- than - significant level. These mitigation measures require new storm drainage facilities as part of new development, requires developers to prepare storm drain plans for individual development projects and requires new flood control facilities to alleviate downstream flooding potential. Mitigation Measures 3.5/51.0 and 52.0 reduced impacts related to non -point source pollution (IM 3.5 / AA) to a less - than - significant level. These mitigation measures mandate that specific water quality investigations be submitted as part of development projects and that the City should develop community -based programs to educate residents and businesses to reduce non -point source pollution. City of Dublin Page 51 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 1997 ND. No potentially significant impacts or mitigation measures were included in this document. The proposed project shall adhere to all of the applicable above previous mitigation measures. Project Impacts a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No New Impact. Approval and construction of the proposed development project would add impervious surfaces to the undeveloped site that would increase the amount of stormwater runoff and potentially degrade water quality. Mitigation Measure 3.5/51.0 contained in the EDSP EIR requires each project developer to prepare and submit a water quality investigation. The City of Dublin also requires new development proposals to adhere to the most recent surface water quality standards adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Typical methods of adherence include routing runoff water though vegetated swales or mechanical water cleaning devices, sweeping of parking lots, covering of trash dumpsters and similar actions. The required water quality investigation will be submitted and reviewed as part of the Stage 2 Development Plan and related SDR and tentative map submittals showing detailed project design. Adherence to the existing mitigation measures will ensure that no new or more significant impacts with respect to water quality violations or wastewater discharges would result than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? No New Impact. No new or more significant impacts are anticipated with regard to depletion of groundwater resources than have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents. Much of the site would remain as rural residential/ agriculture that would allow recharge of the underground aquifer. Also, stormwater runoff from the site would be directed to an existing off -site stormwater basin located west of the site that would allow recharge into the underground aquifer. Also, the proposed water source for this project would rely on surface water supplies from DSRSD and not local groundwater supplies. The project site is not identified as a groundwater recharge area in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts would occur with respect to this topic than has been previously analyzed in earlier CEQA documents and no additional analysis is required. c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial siltation or erosion would occur? No New Impact. No grading is proposed along the streambed. New impervious surfaces would be added to the project site to accommodate new dwellings, roadways, driveways and similar surfaces. Existing drainage patterns may be slightly modified based on proposed development, similar to the existing approved Development Plan. However, project stormwater runoff would flow into existing underground lines previously installed in surrounding streets designed to accept these increased flows (Jim Templeton, project engineer, 1/ 15/4). Moreover, adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.5/44.0 City of Dublin Page 52 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR reduced impacts related to changed drainage patterns and erosion to a less- than - significant level. No new or more severe impacts would result with respect to changed drainage patterns than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project site? No New Impact. No impacts or significant changes to drainage patterns are anticipated as part of the project. The proposed development area lies outside of a FEMA 100 -year flood hazard area. Proposed drainage patterns would generally follow current patterns (Jim Templeton, project engineer, 1/ 15/14). No new or more significant impacts are anticipated than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add substantial amounts of polluted runoff? No New Impact. Adherence to Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 44.0 -48.0 will reduce drainage and pollution impacts to a less- than - significant level. These mitigation measures require new storm drainage facilities as part of new development and requires developers to prepare storm drain plans for individual development projects such as the proposed project. These plans must also address the potential for increased water quality impacts. For the proposed Subarea 3 development, sub - regional drainage improvements to serve this project have already been installed (source: Jim Templeton, project engineer, 1/ 8/ 14). No new or more significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study regarding increases in stormwater runoff than have been previously analyzed; no additional analysis is required. f) Substantially degrade water duality? Please see items "a" and "e." g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate Map? No New Impact. As noted in the Environmental Setting section, above, the site lies outside of a 100 -year flood hazard zone. No new or more significant impacts are anticipated than have been previously analyzed. h, i) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redirect flood flow, including darn failures? No New Impact. Refer to item "g," above. j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? No New Impact. The project site is located well inland from San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of water to be impacted by a tsunami or seiche. No impacts would therefore result. 10. Land Use and Planning Environmental Setting The project site is vacant and contains no dwellings or other structures. City of Dublin Page 53 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Surrounding uses include a combination of developed and undeveloped properties within the Eastern Dublin Planning area. The Groves attached residential project has been constructed to the west. Fallon Sports Park exists north of the site, which is currently proposed for expansion. The Fallon gateway commercial project and undeveloped land exists south of the site. The property east of the site is undeveloped and is vacant. Project Impacts a) Physically divide an established community? No New Impact. The project site is located within a distinct area, between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway west of Fallon Road. The site would either be developed for urban uses or be reserved for agricultural and open space uses. Two small outparcels on the periphery of the Subarea 3 site are not included in this development proposal. Therefore, no existing, established community would be physically divided. No new or more significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than have been previously analyzed in prior CEQA documents. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? No New Impact. Although amendments have been requested to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change development areas on the site, the number of dwellings would be somewhat less with the proposed project than has been previously approved (485 previously approved v. 437 proposed). No changes are proposed to any regulation regulating environmental protection. No new or more significant impacts are anticipated with regard to land use regulations than have been previously analyzed in other applicable CEQA documents. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No New Impact. The project site lies within the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy ( EACCS) planning area. The City of Dublin utilizes the Conservation Strategy as guidance for environmental permitting for public projects, and private development projects are encouraged to use the EACCS as a resource as well. The Conservation Strategy embodies a regional approach to permitting and mitigation for wildlife habitat impacts associated with land development, infrastructure, and other activities. The Conservation Strategy is neither a Habitat Conservation Plan nor a Natural Community Conservation Plan, but is a document intended to provide guidance during the project planning and permitting process to ensure that impacts are offset in a biologically effective manner. There is no existing habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan for the site. There would therefore be no new or significantly more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 1997 ND and no additional analysis is required 11. Mineral Resources Environmental Setting The project site contains no known mineral resources. This is based on the Eastern Dublin EIR. City of Dublin Page 54 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Project Impacts a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR does not indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist in the project area, so no new or more severe impacts would occur than have been previously analyzed. 12. Noise Environmental Setting The City defines "noise" as a sound or series of sounds that are intrusive, irritating, objectionable and /or disruptive to daily life. Noise is primarily a concern with regard to noise sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, churches and hospitals. Although noise is controlled around commercial, industrial and recreation uses, community noise levels rarely exceed maximum recommended levels for these uses. Regulatory Setting The Noise Element of the General Plan identifies the following primary sources of noise in Dublin: traffic noise from freeways and major roadways within the community and noise generated by the BART line adjacent to the I -580 freeway. The Noise Element identifies the following maximum noise exposure levels by land use type. Table 2. City of Dublin Land Use /Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels) Land Use Normally Acceptable Conditionally Acceptable Normally Unacceptable Clearly Unacceptable Residential 60 or less 60 -70 70 -75 75+ Lodging Facilities 60 or less 61 -80 71 -80 Over 80 Schools, churches, nursing homes 60 or less 61 -70 71 -80 Over 80 Neighborhood arks 60 or less 61 -65 66 -70 Over 70 Office/ Retail 70 or less 71 -75 76 -80 Over 80 Industrial 70 or less 71 -75 Over 75 -- Source: Dublin General Plan Noise Element, Table 9 -1, 2012 The City of Dublin also enforces an interior noise standard of 45 decibels for residential dwellings. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that major noise sources within Eastern Dublin include traffic noise from arterial roadways, helicopter overflights from Camp Parks RFTA, west of Tassajara Road, noise generated by development of land uses under the Specific Plan and General Plan and construction noise. No specific significant future noise sources are identified on the project site_ City of Dublin Page 55 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated noise impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: Mitigation Measures 3.10/1.0 reduced impacts related to exposure of proposed housing to future roadway noise (IM 3.10/ A) to a less- than - significant level. This mitigation measure require that all future development projects within a future CNEL 60 noise contour have an acoustic analysis prepared to ensure that future dwelling units meet City noise exposure levels. • Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0 reduced impacts related to construction noise (IM 10 / E) to a less - than - significant level. These mitigation measures require developers to submit construction noise management plans and to limit hours of construction operations. 1997 ND. No new or more severe significant noise impacts were identified in this document. The proposed project will be required to comply with applicable noise mitigation measures identified above. Protect Impacts a) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard? No New Impact. Development of proposed residential land uses on the project site would increase noise on the project site and future residences would be subject to traffic noise from vehicles using Fallon Road, Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway. A recommended condition of SDR and subdivision map approval would require an acoustic specialist to ensure that project features to reduce interior and exterior noise levels on the project site will conform with City noise standards. With adherence to Eastern Dublin EIR noise mitigation measures and noise standards in the General Plan, no new or more significant noise impacts have been identified than previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. The project would contribute to cumulative noise conditions identified as Impact 3.10 / B in the Eastern Dublin EIR, which is exposure of existing residences to future roadway noise. This impact was found to be significant and unavoidable in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Also, EDSP EIR Impact 3.10/D, exposure of proposed residential development to noise from future military training activities at Parks RFTA, was found to be significant and unavoidable. The project site is not located near Parks RFTA. b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No New Impact. The proposed project would not include construction or operational elements that would result in significant groundborne vibration levels to nearby residents (source: Kevin Fryer, applicant representative, 11 / 18 / 13). No new impacts would result with respect to vibration or groundborne vibration than was analyzed in previous CEQA documents on the project site. City of Dublin Page 56 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 c) Substantial increases in permanent in ambient noise levels? No New Impact. Increased levels of permanent noise on the project site that would occur based on project development would be reduced to a less -than significant level through adherence to applicable mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR . No new or more significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? No New Impact. Increased levels of short -term construction noise generated on the project site would be reduced to a less -than- significant level through adherence to applicable mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Dublin Noise Ordinance. These measures require project developers to limit hours of construction activity and to prepare construction noise management plans. No new or more significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, would the project expose people to excessive noise levels? No New Impact. Impact 3.10/C in the EDEIR identified potential noise impacts from the airport as less than significant. Based on Exhibit 3 -2 contained in the Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (2012), the Subarea 3 sits lies north of the noise compatibility zone for this airport. The project site would therefore not be subjected to substantial aircraft noise from this airport. No new or more significant impacts are therefore anticipated in terms of this topic than was previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents and no additional analysis is required. 13. Population and Housing Environmental Setting The project is currently vacant and contains no dwellings or other structures. Project Impacts a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? No New Impact. Approval of the proposed project would not induce substantial additional population growth in the Eastern Dublin area, since development on the affected properties has been envisioned in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin General Plan. Approval of the proposed project would result in fewer dwellings being constructed than currently approved on the site (485 units currently approved v. 437 proposed.) No new or more severe impacts would occur with respect to this topic than were previously analyzed. b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? No New Impact. Since the site is currently vacant, no housing units or people would be displaced should be project be approved and implemented. No new or more City of Dublin Page 57 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 severe impacts than were previously analyzed are therefore anticipated with respect housing displacement. 14. Public Services Environmental Setting The following provide essential services to the community: • Fire Protection. Fire protection services are provided by the Alameda County Fire Department. The Department provides fire suppression, emergency medical response, fire prevention, education, building inspection services and hazardous material control. The nearest station is Station 18 at 4800 Fallon Road. • Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by the Alameda County Sheriff under contact to the City of Dublin. • Schools. The Dublin Unified School District provides K -12 educational services for properties on the project site. • Library Services: Alameda County Library service. • Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities are the responsibility of the City of Dublin. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. Applicable mitigation measures contained in Eastern Dublin EIR addressing fire and police protection include: • Mitigation Measure 3.4/7.0: Establish appropriate funding mechanisms to cover up- front costs of capital fire improvements. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 9.0: Incorporate Fire Department recommendations on project design relating to access, water pressure, fire safety and prevention into the requirements of development approval. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 10.0: Ensure, as a requirement of project approval, that an assessment district, homeowners association or other mechanism is in place that will provide regular long -term maintenance of the urban/ open space interface. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0: The City shall work with the Fire Department and qualified biologists to prepare a wildfire management plan for the project area. rdy City of Dublin a JO January 2014 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project • Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 1.0: Provide additional personnel and facilities and revise beats as necessary in order to establish and maintain City standards for police protection service in Eastern Dublin. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 3.0 -5.0: Incorporate into the requirements of project approval Police Department recommendations on project design that affect traffic safety and crime prevention. 1997 ND. No additional public service impacts or mitigation measures were identified in this document. The project will be required to comply with the above mitigation measures. Project Impacts a) Fire protection? No New Impact. Approval and implementation of the proposed project would increase the number of fire and emergency medical calls for service that would need to be responded to by the Alameda County Fire Department, the City of Dublin's contract fire department, as a result of residential development on the project site. The proposed project is required to adhere to mitigation measures, including payment of public facility impact fees to assist in funding new fire stations (Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 7.0) . Consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 9.0, proposed development on the project site will be conditioned to meet Fire Department requirements including but not limited to maintaining minimum water pressure and fire flow, providing adequate site access, using fire retardant building materials and similar features. Proposed development on the site will also be conditioned to be consistent with the City's adopted Wildfire Management Plan (Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0). Based on discussions with Alameda County Fire Department staff, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to fire service beyond that analyzed in previous CEQA documents (source: Bonnie Terra, Alameda County Fire Department, 11 / 18 / 13) and no new or expanded fire stations would be needed to provide fire and emergency service for the proposed project. No additional analysis is required. b) Police protection? No New Impact. Similar to fire protection, there would be no new impact with regard to police protection, based on mitigation measures included in the Eastern Dublin EIR. These Mitigation Measures include paying City of Dublin public facility impact fees to assist in funding new police facilities (EDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4 / 1.0), incorporating Police Department safety and security requirements into the proposed project, including but not limited to adequate locking devices, security lighting and ensuring adequate surveillance for structures and parking areas (EDSP EIR Mitigation Measures 3.4/3.0 -5.0). Based on discussions with Dublin Police Services Department staff, there would be no new or substantially more severe impacts with respect to police service City of Dublin Page 59 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 associated with the proposed project beyond that analyzed in previous CEQA documents (source: Captain Tom McCarthy, Dublin Police Services, 11 / 20 / 13). No additional analysis is required. c) Schools? No New Impact. No new impacts to school service are anticipated should the proposed project be approved since payment of mandated statutory impact fees at the time of issuance of building permits will provide mitigation of educational impacts of the proposed project pursuant to CEQA. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No additional analysis is required. d) Other governmental service, including maintenance of public facilities? No New Impact. As assumed in the EDEIR, maintenance of public facilities would continue to be provided by the City of Dublin with no new impacts in regard to this topic. New public facilities will be required to be designed to meet City of Dublin standards. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents; no additional analysis is required. 15. Recreation Environmental Setting No neighborhood or community parks and/or recreation services or facilities exist on the project site. However, the City of Dublin maintains a wide range of park facilities throughout the community, including the Fallon Sports Park, located just north of the project site. Regional park facilities are provided by the East Bay Regional Park District, which maintains a large number of regional parks, trails and similar recreation facilities in Alameda and Contra Costa County. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. Applicable mitigation measures contained in Eastern Dublin EIR addressing recreation include: • Mitigation Measure 3.4/29.0: Ensure, as apart of the approval process, that each new development provide its fair share of planned open space, parklands and trail corridors. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/31.0: Calculate and assess in -lieu park fees based on the City's parkland dedication ordinance. Credit towards parkland dedication requirements will only be given for level or gently sloping areas suitable for active recreation use. City of Dublin Page 60 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 • Mitigation Measure 3.4/36.0: Require developer to dedicate public access easements along ridgetops and stream corridors to accommodate the development of trails and staging areas. 1997 ND. No significant impacts related to recreation were identified in this document. Protect Impacts a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? No New Impact. Approval and construction of the proposed project would increase the use of nearby City or regional recreational facilities, since it would include increasing the on -site permanent population on the site. A 2 -acre neighborhood park is proposed as part of the project (see Exhibit 3). The project will also pay public facilities, which include a parks component. There would therefore be no new or more severe impacts with respect to recreation than were previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities? See item "a," above. 16. Transportation /Traffic Environmental Setting Roadways and freeways. The project area is served by arterials Fallon Road, Central Parkway and Dublin Boulevard. Regional access is provided by I -580, south of the site. Existing transit service. Transit service to the project site is provided by the Livermore /Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) which provides bus service in Dublin and throughout the Tri- Valley. The Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) provides regional rapid transit service with the nearest station located at the Dublin Transit Center, located on the south side of Dublin Boulevard just west of Arnold Road. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. Bicycle lanes exist along Fallon Road, Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated traffic impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These measures generally include construction of new roadways, widening of existing roadways and improvements to local freeway facilities to accommodate anticipated increases in the number of vehicles associated with the build out of the Eastern Dublin area. With the exceptions noted below, the EIR found that all traffic and transportation impacts could be reduced to less- than - significant levels with adherence to mitigation measures identified in the EIR. A number of impacts could not be reduced to a level of rcay City Of Dublin c " January 2014 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project insignificance even with mitigations. These include: impacts to the I -580 freeway between I -680 and Hacienda Drive (IM 3.3 / B), impacts to the I -580 Freeway between Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard (IM 3.3/C), cumulative freeway impacts (IM 3.3 / E) impacts to Santa Rita Road and T -580 Eastbound ramps (IM 3.3 / I), and cumulative impacts to Tassajara Road (IM 3.3/N). 1997 ND. No additional potentially significant transportation impacts or mitigation measures were included in this document. The proposed project will be required to comply with all of the applicable mitigation measures for transportation and circulation impacts, including payment of traffic impact fees applicable to all new development in Eastern Dublin. Project Impacts a,b) Conflict with applicable plans related to the effectiveness of the circulation system, including all modes of travel, including intersections, streets, highways and other components or conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including level of service standards, travel demand measures and other applicable standards? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR considered the development of the project site with residential land uses and adopted mitigation measures to address the impacts of residential development throughout Eastern Dublin. The City of Dublin has approved a previous development project on the site that would have contained up to 485 dwellings. Table 3 compares estimated vehicle trips from the proposed Subarea 3 project v. trips that would have been generated from the previously approved development project. Table 3. Comparative Trip Rates - Approved v. Proposed Development (AM, PM & Daily Trips) City of Dublin ray(:. oc Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Dail Trip AMP ak Hour Tri Rate /Unit PM Peak Hour Tri Rate /Unit Land Use Category Rate Total In 7, Out % Total In o Out% MDR (Single- Family- 9.52 0.75 25 72 1.00 63 37 Detached) MHDR (Apartment) Size I 6.65 Daily 0.51 AM 20 Peak Hour 80 Trips 0.62 PM 65 Peak Hour Trips 35 Approved Uses D.U. Trips j Total I In I Out Total In Out MDR 313 2,980 235 59 178 313 197 115 MHDR 172 1,144 88 18 70 106 70 37 Existing Project Trips 41124 323 1 77 1 248 1 267 152 Proposed Uses MDR 330 3,142 248 62 179 330 208 122 MHDR 107 712 55 11 44 66 43 1 23 Proposed Project Trips 3,845 303 73 223 396 251 I 145 Net Change in Project Trips (279) (19) (4) (25) (24) (16) (7) Sources: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 9t Edition, Single- family detached housing ( #210) and Apartment ( #220), 2012. Proposed project uses based on current plan submitted by Mission Valley Homes, Mr. Kevin Fryer, Project applicant, September 2013. City of Dublin ray(:. oc Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Based on the above table, the proposed project would generate an estimated 279 fewer total daily trips, 19 fewer a.m. peak hour trips, and 24 fewer p.m. peak hour trips than the current approved development. However, if approved and constructed, the project would continue to contribute to significant and unavoidable cumulative project impacts as part of the larger Eastern Dublin project. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified such impacts on the following roads and transportation facilities: • I -580 freeway between 1 -680 and Hacienda Drive; • The Santa Rita Road /1 -580 eastbound ramps; • The Dublin Boulevard /Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard /Tassajara Road intersection • Other impacts to Tassajara Road, as identified in the EIR. As part of future development project applications, the project applicant will be required to consult with the Dublin Public Works Department to identify the appropriate traffic control device that would need to be installed at the proposed project entrance along the north side of Central Parkway. Overall, the proposed project would generate fewer daily trips, a.m. or p.m. trips than the currently approved project and would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to traffic loading on local or regional roads. MTS routes or other routes of regional significance. c) Change in air traffic patterns? No New Impact. The proposed project includes residential uses and would have no impact on air traffic patterns. No new or more severe impacts would result with respect to this topic than was previously analyzed in other CEQA documents; no additional analysis is required. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? No New Impact. Approval of the proposed project would add new driveways, sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian travel ways where none currently exist. The current development proposal will be required to comply with current City engineering design standards and other safety standards to ensure that no safety hazards would be created or exacerbated. No new or more severe impacts with respect to design hazards would be created than previously analyzed; no additional analysis is required. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No New Impact. Multiple access roads would be provided to serve the site and would provide adequate emergency access to and from the site as required by the California Fire Code. No new or more severe impacts would result with respect to this topic. Page 63 City of Dublin January 2014 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No New Impact. No conflicts to plans, policies or programs that promote public transit, pedestrian use or similar features were identified in previous CEQA reviews for this project. The project developer would install sidewalks along all adjacent streets to enhance pedestrian circulation as well as on local, in -tract local streets. No new or more impacts have been identified in this Initial Study that has been previously analyzed in other CEQA documents for the project site and no additional analysis is required. 16. Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Setting The project area is served by the following service providers: • Water supply and distribution: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). • Sewage collection and treatment; recycled water: DSRSD. • Storm drainage: City of Dublin and Zone 7. • Solid waste service: Amador Valley Industries • Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co. • Communications: AT &T Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. In terms of water resources, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified overdraft of groundwater resources (Impact 3.5 / P) as a potentially significant impact Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0 and 25.0 would reduce this impact to a level of insignificant. These measures require the City of Dublin to coordinate with DSRSD to develop recycled water resources and otherwise carefully use water resources and that all new development in the Eastern Dublin project area to connect to the DSRSD water system. Impact 3.5 / Q identified an increase in water demand as a potentially significant impact, but this impact could be mitigated to an insignificant level based on implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 26.0 -31.0. These mitigation measures require implementation of water conservation measures in individual development projects and construction of new system -wide water improvements which are funded by development impact fees. Another related impact identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR is the need for additional water treatment plant capacity (Impact 3.5/R). This impact was identified as being reduced to a level of insignificance through the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/ 32.0 -31.0, which requires improvement to the Zone 7 water system, to be funded by individual development impact fees. City of Dublin Page 64 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Impact 3.5 / S (lack of a water distribution system) was identified as a potentially significant impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR, but this impact has been reduced to an insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measures3.5 /4.34.0 -38.0. These mitigations require upgrades to the project area water system and provision of a "will serve" letter prior to issuance of a grading permit. Impact 3.5 / T identified a potentially significant impact related to inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population in the project area. The Eastern Dublin found that this was a significant and unavoidable impact. Regarding sewer service, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.5/B (lack of a wastewater collection system) as a potentially significant impact that could be mitigated through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 1.0 -5.0. These measures require DSRSD to prepare an area -wide wastewater collection system master plan, requires all new development to be connected to DSRSD's public sewer system, discourages on -site wastewater treatment, requires a "will- serve" letter from DSRSD and requires that all sewer facilities be constructed to DSRSD engineering standards. Impact 3.5 noted an impact with regard to extension of a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new development, but could be reduced to an insignificant level since the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan sewer system has been sized to accommodate increased sewer demand from the proposed Specific Plan project. Impact 3.5 / G found that lack of wastewater disposal capacity as a significant impact. An upgraded wastewater disposal facility has been completed by the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency and is currently operational. Impact 3.5 / E identified lack of wastewater treatment plant capacity as a potentially significant impact, which could be reduced to an insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 8.0 and 9.0 that require provision of adequate wastewater facilities through expansion of regional wastewater collection, treatment and disposal systems. No additional mitigation measures pertaining to utilities or service systems were contained in the 1997 CEQA document. Project Impacts a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? No New Impact. The current project would contain the same type of development as analyzed in the EDEIR and 1997 Negative Declaration and, based on recent discussions with DSRSD staff (noted below) regarding this project, the proposed project would not exceed wastewater requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). No new or more significant impacts with respect to wastewater treatment requirements have been identified in this Initial Study than have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents; no additional analysis is required. b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? No New Impact. Water, recycled water and wastewater extensions to existing mains in adjacent roadways would need to be constructed to serve the amount of development proposed in the Subarea 3 development application. According to a representative of DSRSD, District water, wastewater collection, treatment and disposal facilities from the construction of the proposed project would not result in Page 65 City of Dublin January 2014 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project a new or more significant impact than was analyzed in previous CEQA documents (source: Stan Kolozdie, DSRSD, 11 / 19 / 13); no additional analysis is required. The proposed project would also contribute to cumulative impacts related to consumption of non - renewable natural resources (Impact 3.4/S, increase in energy use though increased wastewater treatment and disposal and though the operation of the water system (Impact 3.5/F, H, and U), and inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population (Impact 3.5 / T). All of these impacts were identified as significant and unavoidable in the Eastern Dublin EIR. c) Require new storm drainage facilities? No New Impact. The proposed project would direct stormwater runoff to an existing subregional drainage basin located west of the project site in Eastern Dublin area. This facility has been sized to accommodate peak flows from anticipated development in Eastern Dublin, including the project site so that no new and or upgraded drainage facilities are needed to support proposed development (Jim Templeton, project engineer, 1/ 8/14). No new or more significant impacts are anticipated with respect to storm drain facilities that have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents; no additional analysis is required. d) Are sufficient water supplies available? No New Impact. The EDEIR planned for residential uses on the site, with water service provided by DSRSD. Based on the information provided by DSRSD staff, the District has planned for future urban uses on this site and included such development in the District's Urban Water Management Plan (source: Stan Kolozdie, DSRSD, 11/19/13). Therefore, adequate water supplies are available to serve the project, as assumed in the EDEIR. No new or more significant are anticipated with respect to water supplies than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? See response to "a," above. e, f) Solid waste disposal? No New Impact. The project site is within the franchise area of Amador Valley Industries that provides residential and commercial solid waste pick -up and recycling services. According to representatives of the company, no solid waste service is currently provided to the area, since it is undeveloped. The topic of solid waste disposal was not identified as a potentially significant impact in previous CEQA documents and no new or more significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than have been previously analyzed. g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No New Impact. The existing service provider will ensure adherence to federal, state and local solid waste regulations. No new or more severe impacts are anticipated impacts than have been previously analyzed. City of Dublin Page 66 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) 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 wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate i.inportant examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No. Potential impacts related to biological resources, including a reduction in habitat area of fish or wildlife species, elimination of a plant or animal community, or elimination of an important example of major periods of California history or prehistory was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The proposed project would represent less development intensity than previously analyzed in earlier CEQA documents. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). No. Cumulative impacts of the proposed Sub Area 3 project have been fully analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 1997 ND. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been discovered in the course of preparing this Initial Study. Page 67 City of Dublin January 2014 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project Initial Study Preparers Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager Agencies and Organizations Consulted The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study: City of Dublin Luke Sims, AICP, Community Development Director Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director Michael Porto, Project Manager Andy Russell PE, City Engineer Obaid Khan, City Transportation Engineer Bonnie Terra, Alameda County Fire Department Darrell Jones, Alameda County Fire Department Chief Tom McCarthy, Dublin Police Services Kathleen Faubion, AICP, Assistant City Attorney California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Website DSRSD Stan Kolozdie Applicant Representatives Kevin Fryer References Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 7/2/11 Eastern Dublin General Plan, Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1993 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report, Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1994 Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program, Sycamore Associates, 1996 Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards, David Gates & Associates, 1996 r City of Dublin ayc vv January 2014 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project Livermore Municipal Airport Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, ESA Associates, August 2012 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2006 update Page 69 City of Dublin January 2014 Initial Study /Sub Area 3 Project STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as significant and unavoidable (Resolution 53 -93, May 10, 1993). The City Council carefully considered each impact in its decision to approve urbanization of Eastern Dublin through approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project. The City Council is currently considering the Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 project, which would result in future development of up to 437 single family residences on an approximately 64 acre site (PLPA 2013 - 00033). The project proposes General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to reallocate existing High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential land uses, to reduce and change Open Space land uses to Rural Residential /Agriculture and to increase the site's Stream Corridor designation. The application also proposes a Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan and a Development Agreement. The applications are collectively referred to herein as the "Project ". The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with the 1993 land use approvals for urbanization of Eastern Dublin, including the Subarea 3 property. Pursuant to a 2002 court decision, the City Council must adopt new overriding considerations for the previously identified unavoidable impacts that apply to the current Project.' The City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR will be substantially lessened by implementation of previously adopted mitigation measures with future development of the Project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that the implementation of the Project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the Project have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use, or other considerations that support approval of the Project. 2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the Eastern Dublin EIR. The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR for future development of Eastern Dublin apply to the Project. Land Use Impact 3.1F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands; Visual Impacts 3.8/13; and, Alteration of Rural /Open Space Character Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.318, 3.31E. 1 -580 Freeway, Cumulative Freeway Impacts 1 "public officials must still go on the record and explain specifically why they are approving the later project despite its significant unavoidable impacts." (emphasis original.) Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency 103 Cal. App. 4`h 98. (2002) Page 1 of 2 Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.311, 3.31M. Santa Rita Road /1 -580 Ramps, Cumulative Dublin Boulevard Impacts. Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.41S. Consumption of Non - Renewable Natural Resources and Sewer Water and Storm Drainage Impact 3.5/F, H, U. Increases in Energy Usage Through Increased Water Treatment, Disposal, and Operation of Water Distribution System. Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Impact 3.618. Earthquake Ground Shaking, Primary Effects. Air Quality Impacts 3.111A, 8, C, and E. Future development of the Project will contribute to cumulative dust deposition, construction equipment emissions, mobile and stationary source emissions. 3. Overriding Considerations. The City Council previously balanced the benefits of the Eastern Dublin project approvals against the significant and potentially significant adverse impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City Council now balances those unavoidable impacts that apply to future development on the Project site against its benefits, and hereby determines that such unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the Project as further set forth below. The City declares that each one of the benefits included below, independent of any other benefits, would be sufficient to justify approval of the Project and override the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts. The substantial evidence demonstrating the benefits of the Project are found in these findings, and in the documents found in the administrative record for the Project. The Project will further the urbanization of Eastern Dublin as planned through the comprehensive framework established in the original Eastern Dublin approvals. The Project will create residential development that is compatible with the residential development in the vicinity of the Project. The Project will help the City toward its RHNA goal for new housing units and will help implement policies contained in the Housing Element of the General Plan. The Project will provide a multi -use trail as well as streetscape improvements such as curb, gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping that will be an amenity to the larger community and provide safer pedestrian and bicycle access between existing neighborhoods. The Project will create new revenue for the City, County, and State through the transfer and reassessment of property due to the improvement of the property and the corresponding increase in value. The Project will contribute funds to construct schools, parks, and other community facilities that are a benefit City -wide. Development of the project site will provide construction employment opportunities for Dublin residents. Page 2 of 2 DU��� 19 �' 82 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: January 28, 2014 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - PLPA 2013 -00033 Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 Development Plan, and PLPA 2013- 00034 The Groves at Dublin Ranch (Lot 3) General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, and Vesting Tentative Map 8164 for 122 townhouse /condominium units Report prepared by Mike Porto, Consulting Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Project Proponent, Kevin Fryer, is representing the property owners of two adjacent project sites: Subarea 3: The Applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (EDSPA) and Planned Development rezone with proposed related Stage 1 Development Plan for the 64 -acre area. The proposed GPA/EDSPA would modify the acreage allocated to land uses as follows: a) Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14 units per acre) — from 27.2 acres to 38 acres; b) Medium - High Density Residential (MHDR) (14.1 to 25.0 units per acre) — from 8.6 acres 7.5 acres; c) Rural Residential /Agriculture — from 0 acres to 14.5 acres (as a partial replacement for 24.9 acres of Open Space); and d) Stream Corridor — from 1.3 acres to 2 acres. No changes are proposed for a 2 -acre Neighborhood Park. The Request includes Planned Development Zoning and Stage 1 Development Plan consistent with the GPA/EDSPA. A conceptual project of approximately 437 units is anticipated. The Groves Lot 3: The project is a General Plan /Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from High - Density Residential (25+ units per acre) to Medium -High Density Residential (MHDR) (14.1 to 25.0 units per acre) and a Planned Development rezone and related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review Permit, and Vesting Tentative Map 8164 for 122 townhouse /condominium units on approximately 6.36 net acres. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the Public Hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt the following: a) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution adopting an Addendum for Dublin Ranch Subarea 3; b) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments for Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 and The Groves Lot 3; and c) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a Planned Development Zoning District for Subarea 3 with a related Stage 1 Development Plan to replace uses adopted by Ordinance 24 -97; d) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance for the Groves Lot 3 to a Planned Development Zoning District with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan; and e) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the Site COPIES TO: Applicant File ITEM NO.: Page 1 of 20 C: \Users \agenda \Desktop \6.1 attch Tdoc Development Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Map 8164 for Lot 3 for 122 townhouse /condominium units on approximately 8.8 gross acres (6.36 net acres). Submitted By Mike Porto, Consulting Planner PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reviewed By Assistant Community Development Director The project proponent, Kevin Fryer, represents the owners of two adjacent projects which include Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 and The Groves Lot 3 shown in the vicinity map below. Both projects include General Plan Amendments to change land uses. State law allows only four (4) General Plan Amendments per calendar year; General Plan Amendments for specific projects can be grouped together and adopted by one Resolution. These projects, and the requested General Plan Amendments, have been consolidated into one Staff Report and presented for concurrent consideration to ensure that the City does not exceed four Amendments during 2014. Figure 1: VICINITY MAP Subarea 3 The subject site is located in Area B of Dublin Ranch and received PD Zoning approval in 1997 predating the Stage 1 and Stage 2 PD approval process. The 64 -acre project site is undeveloped and currently vacant; it is bounded on four sides by improved streets. Since the original land use approvals in 1997, there have been no additional applications or requests for entitlements. However, precise alignments for both Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Road have been adopted and subsequently improved resulting in a reconfiguration of the development 2 of 20 0 401Am j Al P �w rig / r ¢qro�/;�✓� q� w1 4 "4�1n„?yo "4'di f �. i„ (fP'NWPWy�yl4flWM ppp iY „h UF fXrfrrw�y del II ry"��c^� 1X Vd�6. lu IgIII ryW 1lll'4( „ se. .�„ Figure 1: VICINITY MAP Subarea 3 The subject site is located in Area B of Dublin Ranch and received PD Zoning approval in 1997 predating the Stage 1 and Stage 2 PD approval process. The 64 -acre project site is undeveloped and currently vacant; it is bounded on four sides by improved streets. Since the original land use approvals in 1997, there have been no additional applications or requests for entitlements. However, precise alignments for both Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Road have been adopted and subsequently improved resulting in a reconfiguration of the development 2 of 20 areas and a request by the property owner to modify the land use layout. Preliminary grading has been done at various times on the site. The site has two hills in the northeast corner rising to an elevation of 470 feet and causing the site to slope from the northeast to the southwest. The slopes on the site range from less than 5% to 50% on the face of the hills. A stream corridor on the site travels approximately 1,000 feet from the northwest corner of the site in a southeasterly direction to the middle of the site. At that point, the water is collected in a storm drain pipe which ultimately drains to the regional water quality basin located between 1 -580 and Dublin Boulevard. Surrounding streets are Central Parkway to the north, Dublin Boulevard to the south, Fallon Road to the east, and Lockhart Street to the west as shown on the vicinity map above. Uses adjacent to and surrounding the project site include: a) Fallon Community Sports Park on the north across Central Parkway; b) Fallon Gateway and a vacant site across Dublin Boulevard to the south planned for a regional medical facility; c) The Groves Lot 3, a Medium -High Density project of 122 townhouse /condominiums on a vacant site west across Lockhart Street concurrently under consideration as well as the existing 610 units of the Fairway Ranch apartments; and d) a vacant property planned for commercial, residential and open space uses across Fallon Road to the east. Abutting the project to the south and east are two properties that are part of Subarea 3, but not a part of the current request, described as: 1) General Commercial — a 2.0 acre site located along the north side of Dublin Boulevard, and 2) Semi - Public — a small site owned and used by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) located along the west side of Fallon Road. The current proposal by the Applicant/Property Owners, Integral Communities, includes: • General Plan /Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to modify the acreage allocated to land uses as follows: a) Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14 units per acre) — from 27.2 acres to 38 acres; b) Medium -High Density Residential (MHDR) (14.1 to 25.0 units per acre) — from 8.6 acres 7.5 acres; c) Rural Residential /Agriculture — from 0 acres to 14.5 acres (as a partial replacement for 24.9 acres of Open Space); and d) Stream Corridor — from 1.3 acres to 2 acres. No changes are proposed for a 2 -acre Neighborhood Park. • Planned Development Rezone with related Stage 1 Development Plan The Groves Lot 3 The Groves Lot 3 is the third phase of a high- density residential neighborhood of Dublin Ranch initially approved as Fairway Ranch. A number of proposals for Lot 3 have been submitted and approved; as early as 2003 and as recently as 2013. The overall Fairway Ranch project approved in 2003 (PA 03 -010) was comprised of three development parcels representing a diverse mix of both affordable and market rate multi - family housing types including senior citizen apartments, family apartments, and condominium units. 3 of 20 The project approved originally is shown in Table 1: TABLE 1: Fairwav Ranch Lot Mu i -Fam ty Huustng Type Nd: o Units, 1 Senior Citizen Leased /Rental Housing (55+ years) 322 2 Multi - Family Leased /Rental Housing 304 3 For -Sale Condominium Housing 304 Total No. of Units 930 The senior housing on Lot 1 was developed with east and west components known as Cedar Grove and Pine Grove. The original Site Development Review, approved in 2003 for Lot 3 generally was approved as a mirror image of the 304 -unit site plan approved for Lot 2, the existing multi - family apartment project immediately to the north of the project site currently identified as Oak Grove. In 2007, a subsequent application was approved for Lot 3, now identified as Sycamore Grove (PA 06 -037). The approved project reconfigured the 304 units to include 22 Live -Work units in a 3 -story townhouse facade along Dublin Boulevard. A third project was approved in March 2013 (PLPA 2012 - 00040) in which Lot 3 was redesigned as a 304 unit apartment complex to more closely reflect the original approval. The Project Site generally is rectangular in shape and currently vacant. The average existing slope typically is less than 1% due to rough grading to create a level building pad for the multi- family structure approved previously. The project site has an embankment approximately four to five feet in height, around the perimeter, behind the current right -of -way, for the three surrounding public streets. The embankment transitions from the flat graded building pad area to the sidewalks and perimeter street improvements constructed during the first two phases of The Groves. All surrounding streets have been improved to the back of the curb adjacent to the project site with some sidewalks and landscaping remaining to be completed as part of the project improvements. The project site will require re- grading /finish grading to accommodate the proposed townhouse building sites and internal vehicular circulation system. The project site is located north of Dublin Boulevard, south of Maguire Way (private street), east of Keegan Street, and west of Lockhart Street as shown on the vicinity map above. Uses adjacent to and surrounding the project site include: a) Oak Grove, a high- density residential apartment complex; b) the vacant site anticipated to be used for a regional medical facility across Dublin Boulevard to the south; c) Subarea 3 as described above on a vacant site across Lockhart Street to the east; and d) The Terraces, a High Density Residential condominium project of 626 units across Keegan Street to the west. The current proposal by the Applicant/Property Owner, Lennar Homes, includes: • General Plan /Specific Plan Amendment to decrease the designated land use and density from High Density Residential (HDR) (25.1 + units per acre) to Medium -High Density Residential (MDHR) (14.1 to 25 units per acre) consistent with housing type and product currently proposed. • Planned Development Rezone and related Stage 1 and 2 and Development Plans. • Site Development Review Permit for 122 townhouse /condominium units within 19 three — story structures ranging from four to eight units per building. • Vesting Tentative Map 8164 to create a subdivision for condominium purposes for 122 townhouses for sale to individual buyers with common areas to be maintained by a Homeowners Association. 4 of 20 ANALYSIS: The following is an analysis of the Subarea 3 project. Subarea 3 General Plan & Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Land Use Designations The Applicant is requesting to change the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Uses as shown in Table 2 and Figure 2 below. TABLE 2: Existina and Proposed Land Uses — Subarea 3 Land Use Existing Proposed Acres Units Acres Units Medium Density Residential (MDR) (6.1 to 14.0 units per acre) 27.2 166 -381 38 232 -532 Medium High Density Residential (MDR) (14.1 to 25.0 units per acre) 8.6 121 -215 7.5 106 -187 Rural Residential /Agriculture (RR/A) (1 unit per 100 acres) 0 0 14.5 0 Open Space (OS) 24.9 -- 0 -- Stream Corridor (SC) 1.3 -- 2.0 -- Neighborhood Park (NP) — No Change 2.0 -- 2.0 -- Total 64 287 -596 64 338 -719 Figure 2 The proposed densities and land use distribution will allow for continuity of open space and a more effective utilization of the property. The requested land use distribution would group residential uses in three areas — a) 7.5 acres of MHDR along the westerly edge of the project site along Lockhart Street across from The Groves, the proposed MHDR residential development to the west; b) a 19.7 -acre neighborhood of MDR north of Dublin Boulevard adjacent the open space and Neighborhood Park, and c) an MDR neighborhood of approximately 18.3 acres within the northeast area of the site. The proposed land use 5 of 20 amendments would increase the acreage for MDR and the Stream Corridor by reassigning the land currently designated Open Space and slightly reducing the acreage for MHDR. The Open Space land use would be eliminated in favor of Rural Residential /Agricultural which allows more flexible options for aesthetic improvements such vineyards, orchards, and community gardens while preserving an Open Space characteristic. The following is a further discussion of the proposed land uses. • Medium Density Residential and Medium -High Residential (MDR and MHDR) - At a maximum, the proposed acreage by use /densities would allow up to 719 units. As elsewhere in Eastern Dublin, this potential is limited through the required PD- Planned Development zoning. A project of approximately 437 units is anticipated based on a general concept plan reflecting the requested amendment to be distributed as 107 units of MHDR (14.27 units per acre) and 330 units MDR (8.68 units per acre). This figure is within the range of the existing land uses and would not represent a significant deviation from the level of development anticipated under the existing land uses. The number of units proposed within the development envelope will ensure that the on -site grading is optimized and the natural drainage is preserved. • Rural Residential /Agricultural (RR /A) - The RR /A land use is proposed for frontage along Central Parkway adjacent to the Stream Corridor and extends diagonally across the project site to the southeast corner and includes the south facing slope of the hillside as further discussed below. The RR /A designation allows the construction of one residential dwelling unit per 100 acres (1 unit/100 acres). However, since the RR /A land use is less than 100 acres, no units would be permitted within that 14.5 acre area, and the Applicant is not proposing to construct or retain any dwelling units in that area . The RR /A area would be managed by the homeowners association. • Stream Corridor (SC) - The Stream Corridor would be expanded from 1.3 acres to 2.0 acres and generally would remain in its existing location. The Stream Corridor was created to fulfill biological mitigations required for development of other portions of Dublin Ranch. • Neighborhood Park (NP) — No changes in location or size are proposed for the 2 -acre Neighborhood Park. It would remain in the central location originally anticipated adjacent to residential uses and open space areas. Visual Resources The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Visual Resource Section 6.3.4 identifies view corridors as well as certain hillsides as visually sensitive. A portion of the project site includes low lying hills that were identified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as "visually sensitive ridgelands" and located within an area contemplated in the City of Dublin Scenic Corridor Policy. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan states that these hillsides are to remain to provide a distinctive visual feature as well as provide a screen for development to the north. The Specific Plan policies do permit grading of these ridge lands providing adherence to the policies are taken into account. Previously significant graded areas of the site were needed to accommodate roadway improvements; however, that grading did conform to the Visual Resources policies. The Specific Plan allows for development on the backside of these hills within certain standards in the Specific Plan. 6 of 20 The south face of these hills (exposed to 1 -580) were designated as Open Space to maintain the natural appearance and intended to remain in order to provide a natural backdrop and screen development to the north. The proposed designation for this area will help ensure that natural undeveloped appearance is maintained. The Applicant's grading concept will conform to the policies of the Visual Resources section of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Most grading activities will occur behind or in front of the current hills with specific contour grading to blend the existing hills with the graded land form. Upon completion, the hillside will be revegetated and will serve to screen development. In addition to recontouring the hill, a small mound graded along the Fallon Road side of the site would serve to hide a large share of the Medium Density Residential planned for the northeasterly area of the project site. This neighborhood would be designed to fit within the natural contours having building pads stepped gradually to match the existing topography of the back side of the hill. Where feasible, the graded slopes would be 3:1 or less. Cut and graded slopes would be revegetated with native vegetation or vineyards. The requested General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments would require adjustments to various figures, texts, and tables in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to ensure consistency throughout the documents. A Resolution recommending the City Council approve a consolidated General Plan /Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment is included as Attachment 1. A draft City Council resolution, with a complete list of the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, is included in Exhibit A of Attachment 1. Planned Development Rezone The Applicant is requesting approval of a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 Development Plan. The proposed zoning would ensure consistency with the land use amendment. The proposed Stage 1 Planned Development Rezone includes: proposed uses, project access, phasing plan, Master Neighborhood Landscaping Plan, and master infrastructure plan as described below. Proposed Uses - A comprehensive list of permitted, conditional, and accessory uses, are provided with the Stage 1 Development Plan. General Development Standards /Design Concept Site Plan - The concept plan for the proposed project places the higher density housing along the westerly edge of the project site along Lockhart Street in the form of 107 Medium High Density units on 7.5 acres resulting in approximately 14.27 units per acre, and 330 Medium Density units, including single - family homes. The 38 acres located in the central and northeasterly areas of the project site would include 330 Medium Density units, including single - family homes at a density of 8.68 units per acre. Based on the Concept and Site Plan, the High Density Residential effectively would be 14.27 units per acre. 7 of 20 Figure 3: Sub Area 3 Site Plan The Stage 1 Development Concept and Site Plan show uses consistent with the requested General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments. Access & Circulation - There will be two primary access points to the site. One will be located on Lockhart Street generally at the intersection with Finnian Way, south of Central Parkway. The entrance would provide access to the High Density Residential housing along Lockhart Street and to the Medium High Density housing north of Dublin Boulevard. The second point, providing access to Medium Density Residential in the northeasterly part of the project site, would be located off of Central Parkway across from the entrance to Fallon Sports Park. It is anticipated that minor vehicular access points may be included as well as emergency vehicle access points (EVA) as required. A review of the joint access points with Fallon Sports Park on Central Parkway will be more thoroughly reviewed for traffic control and land configuration in conjunction with the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Map once the design, unit count and final configuration of the on -site roadways are determined. A 10 -foot wide paved, meandering trail /access road will follow along the stream corridor and through the RR /A area. The trail is proposed to be a continuation of the multi -use regional trail system that starts offsite in the northern portion of Dublin Ranch. The trail on the project site will start at the northwest corner of the site and travel behind the lots and the Neighborhood Park to Dublin Boulevard connecting to the Fallon Gateway retail center. A secondary trail also is proposed to connect the northerly portion of the site with the southern portion of the site through the Rural Residential /Agriculture portion of the site. Sidewalks will be constructed on all perimeter and internal streets to provide pedestrians from both the project and surrounding neighborhoods access to the nearby commercial centers. Grading - The site has undergone some preliminary grading over the years to construct the stream corridor and for drainage and vegetation management. Also, grading has occurred along the perimeter with the construction of the major roadway improvements of Fallon Road and Dublin Blvd. Future grading in conjunction with the Stage 2 Development Plan, SDR and 8 of 20 Vesting Tract Map will conform to the policies required in the Visual Resources section of the EDSP. Master Landscape Plan - A Master Landscape Plan is provided indicating compliance with the adopted Streetscape Master Plan. This plan indicates that the street tree pattern for the surrounding arterials and collector streets is consistent with that approval document. Detailed landscape plans for both the perimeter and internal streets will be provided in conjunction with the future Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review. Phasing Plan - The Applicant is proposing to develop the site in two phases beginning in the north east corner of the site with Phase 1 and the moving westerly with Phase 2 A Resolution recommending the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving the Planned Development Rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan for Subarea 3 is included as Attachment 2 with the Draft City Council Ordinance included as Exhibit A to Attachment 2. The Applicant is required to obtain approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review prior to constructing a project on this site. The Groves Lot 3 General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment The current proposal is for ownership housing at a lower density and fewer units envisioned originally in order to serve the current buyer profile and market segment anticipated for this area. Three previous higher density project approvals on this site have not resulted in construction of a project. Based on the proposed project, the total number of units for Lot 3 effectively would be reduced by 182 units or over half of the 304 multi - family units approved previously. Land Use Designations The request includes a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use of the 6.36 -acre site from its existing designation of High Density Residential (HDR) (25.1 or greater units per acre) to Medium -High Density Residential (14.1 to 25 units per acre). The proposed MHDR land use would allow a range of 113 units to 200 units. The proposed PD rezone fixes the number of units at a maximum of 122 units as further described below. Figure 4: The Groves Lot 3 9 of 20 The requested land use amendments and the current proposal for Lot 3 reflect market conditions and optimal use of the site while remaining consistent with the surrounding community. The proposed density will allow a strong visual transition from the High Density Terrace to the west and the proposed Medium -High Density product anticipated for development on Subarea 3 to the east. The proposed MHDR land use would allow a range of 113 units to 200 units. The proposed PD rezone fixes the number of units at a maximum of 122 further described below. The requested General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments would require adjustments to various figures, texts, and tables in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to ensure consistency throughout the documents. A Resolution recommending the City Council approve a consolidated General Plan /Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment is included as Attachment 1. A draft City Council resolution, with a complete list of the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, is included in Exhibit A of Attachment 1. Planned Development Rezone The proposed Planned Development Rezone and related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan are consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.32 - Planned Development Zoning) are included in Attachment 3 and described below. Proposed Uses: Permitted, Conditional, and Accessory uses related to multi - family development are listed in the proposed Ordinance adopting the Planned Development Rezoning (Attachment 3). Development Standards: The Planned Development includes Development Standards consistent with a Medium -High Density product type. The Development Regulations for the proposed project are shown as fol lows: TABLE 4: The Groves Lot 3 - Development Regulations Standards Medium High Density Residential Attached Multi - Family Townhouse Units Lot Size n/a Building Setback from Arterial Streets 10 feet minimum Building Setback from Property Line (on a public street) 10 feet minimum Building Setback from Property Line (not adjacent to a Public right -of -way) 0 feet minimum Building Setback from Private Street or Common Driveway 10 feet minimum Driveway Length or Garage Setback from Common Driveway or Private Street 3 feet minimum Private Open Space • Ground LevelNard OR 100 square feet minimum • Upper Level /Deck 50 square feet minimum Building Separation 10 feet minimum 10 of 20 Building Separation (both buildings 2 stories or higher) 10 feet minimum 8 feet to porch minimum Maximum Building Height 40 feet/3.5 stories Required Parking 3- Bedroom Residential parking space per unit 2 spaces within an enclosed garage Guest Parking 1 space Site Development Review S►TE LAYOUT /PLOTTING — The proposed project is arranged as three -story attached townhouse units within 19 individual buildings in five building types with three variations. Buildings range from four to eight units per building. Both vehicular and pedestrian entry to the project is from Maguire Way which is a private street between Lot 2 (Oak Grove) and Lot 3 (the project site). A motorcourt on Maguire Way between the project site and Lot 2 to the north identifies the entry to an internal circulation system of drive aisles providing access to the townhouse garages. The buildings are organized with front facades and door entries facing onto a series of pedestrian paseos and open residential courtyards that create a passive, small -scale neighborhood environment. Three buildings face onto Maguire Way to the north. Also, one building at each of the southeast and southwest corners of the site are oriented towards Dublin Boulevard but are raised approximately 5 feet above street level and accessible only from an internal walkway separate from the public right -of -way. Due to topography, pedestrian access to the site on the west is limited to the Maquire entrance with two pedestrian points accessible from Lockhart Street on the east. Building placement with unit distribution is shown in Table 5, below. TABLE 5: Building /Unit Distribution Building No.,, of General Location Units per Units per 3- Bedroom 4- Bedroom Type Buildings, Parcel (per Tract, Map) Bldg. Building.Type Units "') Units (2) A 1 n/e corner Keegan Street and 4 4 2 2 Dublin Boulevard (Parcel 4) B 2 east side of Keegan Street 5 10 6 4 (Parcel 3) 2 on Lockhart Street, C 5 2 in middle of Lot 3, and 6 30 20 10 1 on Dublin Boulevard (Parcels 9, 10 & a portion of 5) n/w corner of Lockhart Street CX 1 and Dublin Boulevard 6 6 4 2 (Parcel 7) 3 on Dublin Boulevard, and 2 D 7 each on Keegan Street and 7 49 35 14 Lockhart Street (Parcels 2, 6 & 8) DX 1 s/e corner of Lockhart Street 7 7 5 2 and Maguire Way (Parcel 11) E 1 s/e corner Kegan Street and 8 8 6 2 Maguire Way (Parcel 1) EX 1 south side of Maguire Way 8 8 6 2 midblock (Parcel 11) Total 19 122 84 38 (1) Floor Plans 1, 2A & 213 (2) Floor Plans 3A, 3A -Alt, 313 & 3C 11 of 20 Common areas include the vehicular circulation system but focus on the system of paseos and residential courtyards. The passive recreation facilities for the proposed project are served by a private pocket park located past the first row of townhouses at the Maguire Way entrance. FLOOR PLANS — Each townhouse unit generally is configured as a three -floor walk -up with access from a street -level entry in front and an enclosed ground -level two -car garage to the rear. The floor plans offered are for either a three - bedroom or four - bedroom unit. Plan 1 and Plan 2 with its variations each have three bedrooms, and Plan 3 with its variations has four bedrooms. All end units are a variation of Plan 3 with four bedrooms, and all units in between are variations of Plans 1 and 2 with three bedrooms for a distribution of 84 three - bedroom units (70 %) and 38 four - bedroom units (30 %). Each unit has a ground floor bedroom with an en suite bathroom. The second level is arranged as a "great room" with living, dining, kitchen, and large deck area for most floor plans. A powder room also is located on each second level. The master bedroom with en suite master bathroom is located on the third floor along with two or three other bedrooms, depending upon the floor plan, and a second full bathroom. Laundry rooms and instantaneous water heaters are located on the third floor of all plans. Each garage is arranged with areas for trash and recycling. Also, based on a recently adopted City ordinance, all units are provided with a dedicated storage area having a minimum of 200 cubic feet separate from the garage. Each master suite has a walk -in closet, dual basins, separate water closet, and separate tub and shower. All forced air unit equipment is located in the attic above each unit and accessible from the third floor. A minimum of 10 %, or 13 units, will be improved as handicapped accessible on the ground floor in accordance with the California Building Code. Approximately 34 units (all end units) potentially could serve that purpose. The floor plans are shown on Sheets A4.00 through A4.21 with potentially accessible units identified on Sheet C.7, Attachment 4. 12 of 20 TABLE 6: The Groves Lot 3 - Floor Plans Plan, No. of Units Sqivare Feet, Bedrooms Bathrooms Buildings "/o of Project' per Plan A, B, C, CX, D, 1 35 1,902 sf 3 3' /z DX, E, EX 29% all buildings A, B, C, CX, D, 2A 37 2,013 sf 3 3' /z DX, E, EX 30% 49 all buildings 40% 2B 10 2,013 sf 3 3' /z D, DX, E, EX 8% 2C 2 2,013 sf 3 3' /z E, EX 2% 3A 3 2,170 sf 4 3' /z CX, DX, EX 2% A, B, C, CX, D, 3A -Alt 19 38 2,170 sf 4 3' /z DX, E, EX 16% 31% all buildings 313 15 2,170 sf 4 3' /z B, C, D, E 12% 3C 1 2,170 sf 4 3' /z A 1% Total 122 100.00% Plan 1 — Plan 1 is a 3- bedroom unit and is the smallest at 1,902 square feet. Plan 1 is an interior unit only, situated with units on both sides. All buildings, except Building A, include two Plan 1 units per building. The 35 units of Plan 1 represent 29% of the total project. Plan 2 — Plan 2 is also a 3- bedroom unit. The three variations on Plan 2 are the most frequently utilized plan at 49 units or 40% of the project. The 2,013 square foot interior unit is also used in each of the 19 buildings, with Plan 2A used more than once in all but Building A. Plan 3 — Plan 3 is a 4- bedroom unit and is the largest at 2,170 square feet. The ground floor bedroom also is described as a den option. All Plan 3 and its variations are end units and "Alt" may be fitted as handicapped accessible where indicated on the plans. At least one Plan 3A -Alt would be provided as an end unit in all buildings. Approximately 13 units have a ground floor yard oriented towards the paseo. ARCHITECTURE — The proposed exterior architecture is a contemporary interpretation of eclectic craftsman style consistent and compatible with Phases 1 and 2 of the project known as The Groves. Buildings would be Type V wood frame structure with a mix of exterior materials. The building roof generally is a gable form from end -to -end pitched at 4:12. Building ends may have hip construction over at least one end, gable projections over upper level windows, and shed or trellis structures over porches and decks. Roof materials are a flat concrete the in one of two colors and standing metal seam accents over porches and some projections. In addition to the roof, exterior materials include brick veneer, stucco finish, fiber cement board siding (both horizontal and vertical), and fiber cement trim to accent windows and door frames. Brick veneer in two different colors is used to anchor the ground floor of each building below a horizontal band generally situated between the first and second floor, or second and third level. This band technique often is used to visually break up a large facade. Buildings are articulated at the second and third level with window bays and covered decks having varying depths and dimensions. In addition to the fiber cement trims in contrasting colors, other architectural elements include corbel supports for second and third level building projections and decks, gable end ridge beam 13 of 20 details, wooden deck railings and porch posts accented with kickers, corbelled pot shelves, and decorative shutters for upper level windows. All front doors are detailed with a four -pane window at the top to allow natural light. All windows are presented as double -hung, and each rear elevation reflects the metal sectional garage doors serving each unit. Since all of the proposed buildings share similar forms and features, the building type among the five types listed is more a function of unit mix and color scheme rather than architectural style. The architectural style is carried into the landscape and open space plan with the proposed hardscape materials and amenities within the common recreational and open space areas. Two colors schemes are shown along with the proposed brick veneer accent materials and roof materials. (See Attachment 4, Sheet A5.00) The buildings adjacent to Dublin Blvd will require interior and exterior sound attenuation in accordance with the requirements of the Mitigation Measures contained in the EDSP and the recommendations of the March 2013 acoustic study. PARKING — The proposed townhouse project would be built in compliance with the standard currently shown with the proposed PD rezoning of 2 covered spaces per unit within an enclosed garage plus one guest space per unit for a total parking requirement of 366 spaces. This figure includes: a) 244 covered spaces — 2 spaces per units within an attached enclosed garage b) 123 guest spaces (122 spaces required) provided The location of parking provided is shown on Attachment 4 Sheet C.3 LANDSCAPING - As in any higher density community, landscaping and recreational amenities are used to provide quality open areas and visual relief. The landscaping is generous and has been designed to be compatible and complement the architecture as to theme and character of the residential structures. Plantings and hardscape elements are used to create neighborhood identification and an attractive community entry. All project streets, perimeter sidewalks, interior sidewalks, paths, paseos, and common areas are shaded and enhanced by trees and plantings to soften architectural ends, highlight entries, and minimize the overall scale of the structures. A combination of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, groundcover, and grasses are proposed for color, texture, contrast, screening, direction to amenities, and overall project identity. The proposed listing of plant materials is shown on Attachment 4, Landscape Architecture tab, Sheet L -2. Paseos - Pedestrian circulation is accommodated and emphasized by a series of paseos which serve as the common areas, interface with front door entries, and presentation of the neighborhood image. The paseos feature a scored concrete pathway of approximately 4 feet wide flanked by narrow trees, shade tolerant flowering shrubs, and groundcover. Each end unit entrance is highlighted by an arbor, attached to a low front porch railing, in a style complementary to the building architecture. The residential paseos range in width from approximately 12 feet between front porch railings to 20 feet between building facades. Depending upon length, each paseo is designed with one or more residential courtyards or "landings" of scored concrete as a complement to the landscaping; the proposed landscape plan shows 13 of these features. Pedestrian level bollards are proposed to provide pathway illumination. (See Attachment 4, Landscape Architecture tab, Sheet L -4) 14 of 20 Pocket Park — The location of the pocket park near the Maguire Way entrance is identified within the drive aisle by enhanced paving in the form of decorative cast concrete unit paving stones leading to a scored concrete surface behind the curb face. An entry gate defines the site with a low neighborhood wall clad in a complementary brick veneer and a 3 -foot high stained wooden border fence. A scored concrete footpath serves as a continuation of the adjacent paseo and divides the park into two areas. Footpath surfaces within the park are composed of scored concrete pads joined by areas of decomposed granite. This recreational amenity will provide a quiet garden retreat, as well as an area for social gatherings and other activities. Both feature landscaping with planters, fixed benches, and trash receptacles. The southerly area would include a pre -cast planter /fountain as a focal point along with lush ground cover. In addition to fixed benches, the northerly portion would be equipped with a picnic table, lighting, two stained wooden pergolas with rose vines, and a stained wooden arbor, each in an architectural style that complements the buildings. STREETSCAPE — A streetscape concept has been shown for Dublin Boulevard and street sections with proposed improvements are shown for each type of internal drive aisle. Drive aisles are generally 20 feet wide except where adjacent to perpendicular guest parking; in those cases drive aisles would be 24 feet wide, and 28 feet wide on aisles with one side of parallel parking. A small landscaped planter would be maintained within a narrow setback between garage doors along the rear elevation. Landscape treatment details are included for the four perimeter frontages: Dublin Boulevard — Street trees will be placed in a triangular pattern in the parkway behind the sidewalk to create a "grove" effect while maintaining the theme of a traditional tree -lined residential street consistent with the Streetscape Master Plan. Since the building grade is higher than street level at this location, drive aisle ends shall be treated with transparent iron fencing. Ground -level retaining walls will be hidden with a landscaped slope or, where exposed, finished with stucco or brick veneer and cap details compatible with the on -site improvements. Landscaping will consist of flowering groundcover and shrubs adjacent to the sidewalk and parkway. The mid -level and upper levels of the slope would be planted with taller shrubs and grasses to provide texture, color, and a cascading effect to control erosion. Taller upright shrubs will be placed at the top of the slope adjacent to the on -site perimeter walkway and building ends to serve as a buffer for pedestrians and screening from Dublin Boulevard. (See Attachment 4, Landscape Architecture tab, Sheet L -6) Keegan and Lockhart Streets — Landscape materials will be a continuation of the established streetscape concepts for the adjacent Oak Groves projects to the north. Corner monuments and neighborhood identification markers are proposed for both corners at Dublin Boulevard consistent with the architectural style of the project and complementary to existing monuments along Dublin Boulevard. As with Dublin Boulevard, a slight grade differential will be evident between the existing improved right -of -way and the finished building grade. A variety of flowering shrubs and grasses are proposed in a tiered arrangement with lower flowering groundcover adjacent to the sidewalk and taller cascading shrubs and grasses on the upper parts of the slope. Smaller flowering secondary trees would be used at building ends to reduce mass and scale and provide seasonal color. Street trees also would be consistent with the adopted street concept. Pedestrian access to the project site from the adjacent public right -of -way would be at two locations along the easterly edge of the project site adjacent to Lockhart Street. Pedestrian interfaces will be highlighted with flowering trees. (See Attachment 4, Landscape Architecture tab, Sheets L -7 and L -8) 15 of 20 Maguire Way — A street concept with a designated street tree already has been established for Maguire Way as part of the apartment project to the north and will be consistent along the south side adjacent to the proposed project. Accent landscaping of secondary flowering trees will be used to minimize the vertical scale of the architecture. The main entrance and marketing window to the proposed project along Maguire Way will highlight accent plantings through a combination of evergreen flowering shrubs, grasses, and ground cover. Vesting Tentative Tract Map (The Groves Lot 3, only) Vesting Tentative Tract 8164 is proposed to be subdivided for condominium purposes as follows- TABLE 7: Vesting Tentative Map Parcel Development Parcel Acreage (net) Description 1 .34 ± Building E (Residential) 8 units 2 .55 ± Building D (Residential) 14 units 3 .35 ± Building B (Residential) 10 units 4 .20 ± Building A (Residential) 4 units 5 .48 ± Building C (Residential) 13 units 6 .48 ± Building D (Residential) 14 units 7 .27 ± Building CX (Residential) 6 units 8 .46 ± Building D (Residential) 14 units 9 .43 ± Building C (Residential) 12 units 10 .41 ± Building C (Residential) 12 units 11 .52 ± Buildings DX and EX (Residential) 15 units A 1.47 ± Internal Circulation System - Private Street B .40 ± Maguire Way - Private Street (existing) Total 6.36 122 units Conditions of Approval are included in the Resolution recommending approval (Attachment 5). All utilities are available at the property line; all perimeter streets and right -of -way already have been dedicated, and streets have been improved. Perimeter sidewalks and landscaping would be constructed as part of this project. Public Art Compliance — This project is subject to compliance with the City's Public Art Ordinance. The Ordinance requires the Applicant's contribution will be .5% of the aggregate value of the home construction to be determined and calculated by the City's Building Official. The Applicant has submitted a Public Art Compliance Report included in the project submittal package and proposes to pay in -lieu fees. An appropriate Condition of Approval has been included. (See Attachment 5, Condition 29). CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN & ZONING ORDINANCE The application includes proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Subarea 3 includes a request for PD- Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan. The Groves Lot 3 includes a request for Planned Development rezoning and a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan. The proposed amendments to the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan reflect land uses that are compatible with the adjacent areas and surrounding development. For The Groves Lot 3, the proposed land use represents a reduction in residential density than approved previously but effectively corresponds to the number of units anticipated for this area prior to the granting of density bonuses as an incentive for providing affordable housing. The proposed project will contribute to housing opportunities and diversity of product type as a complement to the surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed Stage 1 Planned Development rezoning for both 16 of 20 projects and the proposed Stage 2 Development Plan for The Groves Lot 3 would be consistent with the requested land use amendments. Both projects have been reviewed for conformance with the Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan which evaluates compatibility of the design with adjacent and surrounding development via pedestrian circulation, gathering spaces, open spaces, and integration with the village concept. In general, the proposed project furthers the goals of the Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan by providing a high quality of life and preserving resources and opportunities for future generations. REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES: The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, Dublin Police Services and Dublin San Ramon Services District reviewed the projects to ensure that they are planned and will be built in compliance with all local Ordinances and Regulations. Conditions of Approval from these departments and agencies will be included at the time of Site Development Reviews and Subdivision applications for Subarea 3 and have been included in the attached Resolution pertaining to the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Map (Attachment 5) for The Groves Lot 3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The projects are located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, which was the subject of an Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (SCH # 91103064), certified by the City Council in Resolution No. 51 -93. The General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan EIR is a program EIR, which anticipated several subsequent actions related to future development in Eastern Dublin and identified some impacts from implementation of the General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan that could not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin project, the City adopted a statement of overriding considerations for such impacts. The City also adopted a mitigation- monitoring program, which included numerous measures intended to reduce impacts from the development of the Eastern Dublin area. The environmental impacts of the existing land uses were addressed by the Negative Declaration approved by the City Council in Resolution No. 140 -97 for the Planned Development Rezoning for 453 acres of Dublin Ranch (Areas B -E). For Subarea 3 - The City prepared an Addendum, determining that no additional environmental analysis was required beyond the prior Eastern Dublin EIR and 1997 ND. For The Groves Lot 3 - Impacts have been found to be the same or less than those analyzed previously with no further environmental review required. In June 2003, the City prepared an Initial Study for Fairway Ranch to determine whether there would be supplemental environmental impacts occurring as a result of this project beyond or different from those already addressed in the Program EIR and the 1997 Negative Declaration. The Initial Study concluded that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment because the environmental impacts of this project were fully addressed by the final EIR for the General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and subsequent Addenda, and the 1997 Negative Declaration. Since the number of units currently proposed for The Groves Lot 3 is less than initially evaluated, impacts from the proposed project have been found to be the same or less than those analyzed previously and would not require any further environmental review. An Initial Study was prepared for Subarea 3, and a determination was made to prepare an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR and 1997 ND, included as Exhibit A to the Draft City 17 of 20 Council Ordinance. Attachment 6 is a draft Planning Commission Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Addendum. Pursuant to the 2002 Citizens for a Better Environment case, approval of the Addendum will include a Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant unavoidable impacts identified in the prior EIR that are applicable to the project or project site. All other EIRs NDs, Resolutions, and Ordinances referenced above and throughout the Staff Report are incorporated herein by reference and are available for review at City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California during business hours. PUBLIC NOTICING: In accordance with State law, a public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project to advertise the project and the upcoming public hearing. A public notice was also published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. A copy of this Staff Report has been provided to the Applicant. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments for Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 and The Groves Lot 3 with the draft City Council Resolution attached as Exhibit A 2) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a Planned Development Zoning District for Subarea 3 with a related Stage 1 Development Plan to replace uses adopted by Ordinance 24 -97, with the draft City Council Ordinance attached as Exhibit A 3) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance for the Groves Lot 3 to a Planned Development Zoning District with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, with draft City Council Ordinance attached as Exhibit A 4) The Groves Lot 3 - Applicant's submittal package dated January 22, 2014 5 Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the Site Development Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Map 8164 for Lot 3 for 122 townhouse /condominium units on approximately 8.8 gross acres (6.36 net acres) 6) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution adopting an Addendum for Dublin Ranch Subarea 3, with draft City Council Resolution attached as Exhibit A 18 of 20 SUBAREA 3 GENERAL INFORMATION (PLPA 2013 - 00033): APPLICANT: Kevin Fryer 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 170 Pleasanton, CA 94588 PROPERTY OWNER: Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 Project Owner LLC managed by Integral Communities 500 La Gonda Way, Suite 102 Danville, CA 94526 Attn: Drew Kusnick LOCATION: ASSESSORS PARCEL EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION: PROPOSED RE- ZONING: SURROUNDING USES: North of Dublin Boulevard, south of Central Parkway, east of Lockhart Street, and west of Fallon Road APN 985 - 0027 -012 a) Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14.0 units per acre) — 27.2 acres; b) Medium High Density Residential (14.1 to 25 units per acre) — 8.6 acres; c) Open Space — 24.9 acres; d) Stream Corridor — 1.3 acres; and e) Neighborhood Park — 2.0 acres City Council Ordinance 24 -97 a) Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14.0 units per acre) — 38 acres, b) Medium High Density Residential (14.1 to 25 units per acre) — 7.5 acres; c) Rural Residential /Agricultural (1 unit per 100 acres) — 14.5 acres, d) Stream Corridor — 2.0 acres; and e) Neighborhood Park — 2.0 acres (no change). PD PLPA 2013 -00033 LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY North PD Parks /Public Recreation Fallon Community Sports Park Vacant South C -O Campus Office Planned Hospital /Medical Facility East PD Medium -High Density Residential, vacant and Open Space High Density Residential vacant West PD (pending approval of (pending approval for 122 -unit Medium High Density Residential) townhouse /condominium project — The Groves Lot 3) 19 of 20 THE GROVES LOT 3 GENERAL INFORMATION (PLPA 2013 - 00034): APPLICANT: Kevin Fryer 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 170 Pleasanton, CA 94588 PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN & EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN: SURROUNDING USES: Lennar Homes 6121 Bollinger Canyon Road #500 San Ramon, CA 94583 North of Dublin Boulevard, south of Maguire Way (private street), east of Keegan Street, and west of Lockhart Street I_1 W101 &I:I6' 1111z' 141111191 [oil] Existin - PD -High Density Residential (Ord. 24 -97) Proposed — PD- Medium -High Density Residential Existing - High Density Residential Proposed - Medium -High Density Residential LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY North PD High Density Residential Multi- family apartments (Oak Grove at Dublin Ranch) Vacant South C -O Campus Office Planned Hospital /Medical Facility Medium Density Residential Vacant East MDR (pending approval for Medium- (Dublin Ranch Subarea 3) High Density Residential) Multi - Family Residential West PD High Density Residential (The Terraces - 262 condominium units) 20 of 20 DRAFT DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, January 28, 2014 CALL TO ORDER /ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 28, 2014, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Bhuthimethee called the meeting to order at 7:01:12 PM Present: Chair Bhuthimethee; Vice Chair Goel; Commissioners Do, O'Keefe, and Kohli; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Seth Adams, Assistant Planner; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA — NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 5 -0, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the January 14, 2014 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR — NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — 8.1 PLPA- 2013 -00067 California Creekside Conditional Use Permit to amend the General Provisions and Development Standards for the California Creekside Planned Development Zoning Seth Adams, Assistant Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Goel asked if the developer requested a variance for the additions that were built specific lots as non - conforming. Mr. Adams answered no; he felt it was an oversight. Cm. Goel asked why the oversight is coming to the Planning Commission at this point. Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, responded that the City became aware of the situation when the homeowner submitted a Site Development Review application to build an addition. He stated that, as Staff researched the application, it was discovered that when the subdivision was built, approximately 12 -15 years ago, certain homes were inadvertently approved at a lot coverage that exceeded what the Planned Development allowed. 41 tanning inn Coaaaaaaissio n j anuag 28, 20 ./4 (kgjukaa `JOAleeliwaif air as g e DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Goel felt that, if the Planning Commission approves the amendment, it should apply to all homeowners in the development giving them similar or equal opportunity for lot coverage. Mr. Baker answered that the Planning Commission is considering a proposal to formally adopt an amendment to legalize what has already been built. The amendment would not change the standards for other residents to further intensify their homes beyond the approved max lot coverage. He stated that the adjacent homeowners bought their homes knowing the neighboring house was there and are not proposing to intensify the development any further than what they bought into. Cm. Goel asked if the Planning Commission would be amending the PD for those specific lots or providing a variance. Mr. Baker answered that the Planning Commission would be amending the PD in order to allow the homes that were built at the excess lot coverage to be legalized. Cm. Goel asked if there had been any feedback from the community. Cm. Do asked, of the homes built at the excess lot coverage, what was the percentage above the 35% to 40 %. Mr. Adams answered that he found some lots as high as 48% on a two -story home. Cm. Do asked how many homes were built at the excess lot coverage. Mr. Adams responded that Staff is unclear. He stated that once one home was discovered, additional homes were analyzed that appeared to have been built in excess of the standard. It then became apparent that there were more. Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing. Ravi Bala, 4632 Hawk Way, neighbor of property owner, spoke regarding the project. He stated that, although the Applicant is a great neighbor, he was concerned with the proposed addition to his neighbor's home and how it would impact the light and view at his own home. He stated that he had not seen the plans for the addition yet. Chair Bhuthimethee asked what side of the Applicant's property his property was located. Mr. Bala stated that his home, if facing the Applicant's house, is on the right side. Cm. Goel asked if his home faced east/west or north /south and asked if he was concerned with the light during the morning or evening. Mr. Bala answered that his home faces east with a window on the east and the south sides. He felt that there is a lot of natural light from the south window during midday, but the east facing window receives very little light. He stated that the south window faces the Applicant's house which is where the addition would be located. 41 tanning inn Coaaaaaaissio n J anuag 28, 20 .H (kgjukaa `JOAleeliwaif air as g e 19 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Kohli asked if he is objecting to any addition and also asked if he had discussions with the Applicant regarding the addition and its impacts on his residence. Mr. Bala responded that he is not objecting to any addition but he had not reviewed the plans yet. Mr. Baker stated that the Planning Commission is reviewing an amendment to the PD that proposes to allow second floor additions and would be the standard for the entire PD. the Planning Commission is not reviewing a specific Site Development Review (SDR) Permit at this time. Kevin McAuliffe, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that he is willing to work with his neighbor to reduce the impact of the addition to Mr. Bala's home. Chair Bhuthimethee closed the public hearing. Cm. Kohli asked, if the amendment is approved, will the SDR for the addition be heard by the Planning Commission or will it become a private matter between the neighbors. Mr. Baker answered that currently the zoning does not allow for the addition. If the PD Amendment is approved, the Applicant will be required to submit an application for an SDR; if the addition is under 500 sf, it would not require SDR. Cm. Kohli asked if there were any other comments, either for or against the amendment. Mr. Baker answered no. Cm. Goel asked if a notice was sent to all homeowners in the area. Mr. Baker answered that all the residents within PD district were sent notices for the hearing. Cm. Goel asked if the PD Amendment would impact 30 of the 150 homes. Mr. Adams answered that at the time of the first PD amendment, which allowed for first floor additions, of the 154 homes in the development, only approximately 30 homes could potentially build a first floor addition because of lot coverage restrictions. He added that the current PD Amendment proposal would allow second story additions to all 154 homes in the development just as is allowed throughout the City. Cm. Goel asked if other homeowners within the development wanted to build an addition, would they require approvals of the other property owners, how would they obtain a permit and would impacts to other properties be considered when approving the SDR. Mr. Baker answered that residential additions under 500 sf do not require an SDR permit. If the addition is larger than 500 sf, according to a citywide Zoning Code, it would require an SDR permit which could be approved by the Community Development Director and also requires noticing all property owners /residents within 300 feet of the project. Cm. Goel asked for an explanation of the SDR requirement of less -than 500 sf for residential additions and how the 500 sf was determined. 41 tanning inn Coaaaaaaissio n J anuag 28, 20 .H (kqj kaa Aleelialif W as g e I /0 DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Baker responded that the requirement is part of the Zoning Code and was approved along with other Zoning Code amendments through a recommendation by the Planning Commission. Cm. Goel asked if the 500 sf guideline could be altered. Cm. Baker answered that it could be altered for the current PD Amendment, but not citywide. Cm. Goel asked if altering the Zoning Code would require a different process and how could the Planning Commission change the guideline. Mr. Baker asked Cm. Goel if he was concerned with the public notice part of the SDR process. Cm. Goel asked if the Planning Commission approved the PD Amendment; how would that happen and how would that alter the application process for a typical SDR permit. Mr. Baker responded that it would depend on what part of the SDR process that the Planning Commission wanted to change. He felt that Cm. Goel wanted to require an addition, over a certain size, to require a public notice so that if a neighbor were building a 2nd floor addition the neighbors would be notified. He felt that the Planning Commission could require any addition above a certain square footage to require an SDR and that requirement would be added to the PD. Cm. Goel asked if the SDR permit would be heard by the Planning Commission. Mr. Baker answered that the Planning Commission could also require a public hearing before the Planning Commission for those SDRs. He stated that currently the Zoning Code helps to streamline some of the smaller projects by allowing approval at the Staff level by the Community Development Director. He stated that the Planning Commission could consider a similar process by establishing the size threshold and anything over that threshold would require an SDR permit approved by the Community Development Director or if the Planning Commission wants to hear all of those projects they can set it up that way also. Cm. Goel felt that the question was: if the Planning Commission wanted to alter the square footage requirement for an SDR, would that modification mean that the current item would need to come to the Planning Commission again or would it be part of the current item. Mr. Baker responded that the Planning Commission could make the square footage requirement part of the agendized item and take action on it at this meeting. Kit Faubion, City Attorney, responded that the project before the Planning Commission addresses the PD zoning for the development through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). That means this is a minor amendment and would not change the concept of the zoning. She suggested that, as the Planning Commission is considering alternatives, they should look at whether this is still minor enough that it fits within the CUP process for amending the PD zoning as opposed to something more complicated. Cm. Goel asked if reducing the square footage for SDR approval would fall under the CUP process for amending the PD Zoning. 41t aaaaaaa g Coaaami"s io n J anuag 28, 20 ./4 DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Baker answered that when the Planning Commission determines what they want to do, Staff could give them more definitive answers, but changing the square footage for SDR approval would appear to be a minor amendment to the PD which could be handled through a CUP. Cm. O'Keefe agreed with Cm. Goel regarding lowering the square footage requirement for noticing the neighbors. He also felt that it would be appropriate to legalize all non - conforming homes through the PD Amendment. Cm. Do agreed. Cm. Kohli agreed and felt that the community should be able to address the issue between themselves but felt that there should be measures in place to ensure that the neighbors are informed of additions that may impact their homes. He felt that the homeowners should have the option to bring an SDR application for a second story addition to the Planning Commission. Cm. O'Keefe clarified that he would not be in favor of bringing all SDRs to the Planning Commission and would continue to support Staff level approvals, if the SDR is a certain size. Chair Bhuthimethee clarified that the PD Amendment for the CA Creekside development was brought to the Planning Commission because it is unique in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), in that it is different than every other development. She stated that the CA Creekside PD is the only PD in the City that does not allow 2nd story additions. Mr. Baker agreed. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that the Planning Commission was in support of legalizing the legal non - conforming homes so that every PD in the EDSP would be the same. Cm. Goel stated that he is in support of legalizing the non - conforming homes. He was concerned, as a realtor, that second story additions could be a problem. He was also concerned that CA Creekside was the only development that chose not to allow additions and wanted to know more about the history of that decision. He felt there should be systems in place to avoid this situation in the future. He felt that if the SDR permits, above a certain square footage, were allowed to be approved at Staff level, it would not allow for public input. He felt that a home that is subject to an impact may not be able to have the level of opportunity to speak in position through a Staff level choice. He was unhappy with the SDR process. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that the SDR's would still go through a Staff review. Her concern about reducing the SDR Zoning Code for this PD to 200 sf, or whatever is decided, is that the CA Creekside PD would still be the only development in the City with a 200 sf restriction. Cm. Kohli asked if when homeowners bought their homes, they bought them with the understanding that there was no option for additions. Mr. Baker responded that the zoning was set up that way when the development was approved, but was not sure if the residents understood the zoning requirements or if they knew the restrictions at the time they purchased their home. Cm. Kohli asked if there were other developments with this restriction in Dublin. 41 tanning inn Coaaaaaaissio n J anuag 28, 20 ./4 (kgjukaa .`JOAleelaaaif W as g e 11 DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Baker responded that each PD is slightly different, but none have this type of standard regarding additions. He stated that when the CA Creekside PD was originally adopted there were no additions allowed. There was a subsequent PD amendment to allow first floor additions and the proposed PD Amendment would allow second story additions. Cm. O'Keefe felt that the Planning Commission is in agreement to allow the community to build second story additions to their homes. He stated that the resident who spoke did not have concerns with allowing second floor addition. He felt that if the Planning Commission lowers the square footage requirement for noticing, the residents will receive a notice and have an opportunity to speak with Staff regarding their concerns. Mr. Baker answered yes; the residents would be able to voice their concerns and Staff would take those into consideration. He stated that there is also the option that the Community Development Director could refer the decision making to the Planning Commission. Cm. O'Keefe stated that he would like for the process for SDR's to remain at Staff level, with the option to refer decision making to the Planning Commission if needed. Cm. Kohli agreed. Cm. Goel stated that his position was to create a trigger mechanism whereby an SDR will not be approved automatically because it is in Building Code conformance. He would like to see a process that creates the noticing and seeks the approval process. He agreed that all SDR permit applications do not need to be heard by the Planning Commission. He was concerned with a harsh trigger and felt that 200 sf (10'X20') is easy to achieve on the back of a home. He felt that there was some type of underlining reasons why the PD was set up with these restrictions and why the Planning Commission only allowed for the lower story; he felt that there was more to it than meets the eye. Cm. Do agreed and felt it was important for the public to have the option of knowing that there will be an addition that could impact their home. She agreed that the trigger for noticing should be a 200 sf addition. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if 200 sf is what the Planning Commission is proposing. Cm. Goel felt it should be lower but agreed with 200 sf. He felt the decision should be subject to comment from Staff and the City Attorney as far as what can and cannot be done and how to achieve it. Mr. Baker asked if the Planning Commission is proposing to modify the Resolution: Amended Condition #2 to add item "e," which would read: Residential additions which are over 200 sf in size shall be subject to Site Development Review by the Community Development Director in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance permit procedures. Mr. Baker stated that would trigger the noticing as well as the opportunity to refer decision making to the Planning Commission. Cm. Goel asked if the Community Development Director would still be able to refer the decision to the Planning Commission if he felt it was necessary. 41 tanning inn Coaaaaaaissio n J anuag 28, 20 ./4 (kqj kaa Aleelialif W as g e DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Baker stated that there is a process in the Zoning Code that allows for that. On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Cm. Kohli, on a vote of 5 -0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted, with a modification to Condition #2 by adding item "e" as stated above: RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND THE GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE CALIFORNIA CREEKSIDE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING 8.2 PLPA 2013 -00033 Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 Development Plan, and PLPA 2013 -00034 The Groves at Dublin Ranch (Lot 3) General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, and Vesting Tentative Map 8164 for 122 townhouse /condominium units Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report Subarea 3 - Discussion Cm. Goel asked if the Initial Study CEQA addendum is part of the project tonight. Mr. Porto answered that the Planning Commission is being requested to adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the document. Chair Bhuthimethee asked about the $1.8 million Community Benefit Payment for the Fallon Sports Park. She asked if there was any thought about trails in the project and mentioned she had read something about the stream corridor. Mr. Porto responded that currently there is an existing open space corridor that starts in Area A of Dublin Ranch along the west side of Fallon Road. Adjacent to the trail is a mitigation area that was required by Fish and Wildlife to mitigate areas of development in other portions of Dublin Ranch. He explained the route of the trail and pointed out an area that was planted in conjunction with the resource agency requirement. He stated that the developer would be required to submit Site Development Review in the future to connect the trail to the park and then to the intersection of Dublin Blvd and Fallon Gateway. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if there is a trail connecting to the open space area to the east of Fallon Road. 41 tanning inn Coaaaaaaissio n J anuag 28, 20 .H (kqj kaa Aleelialif 41 as g e I /,I DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Porto responded that, in the Parks and Trails Master Plan, there is an east/west trail on Dublin Blvd. He stated that it is intended that there be a trail on the north and south sides of Dublin Blvd. which is an on- street bike path. Chair Bhuthimethee asked about the "bumps" on the site; she asked if the one on the southeast will be retained. Mr. Porto pointed out the hill that will be retained. He stated that it will be slightly modified, but it has been slightly modified before. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the hill he pointed out was the one that was moved. Mr. Porto answered yes; he added that both "bumps" on the project were moved. He stated that Fallon Road was supposed to follow a certain trajectory but, because of the red legged frogs, they had to push Fallon Road and ended up pushing the hill westerly and at the same time the alignment of Central Parkway also required the hillside to be reconfigure. Cm. Goel referred the Planning Commission to Table 2 in the Staff Report. He stated that Staff mentioned that the current project represents a reduction in housing units, but from his review on the upper end of the acreage calculations, the net units are actually increasing by 120 units and asked if that was accurate. Mr. Porto answered yes based on the range of the land uses that are being proposed. Cm. Goel asked if that would be the maximum amount of units for this development. Ms. Faubion stated that the General Plan has a range of units for each land use designation. She stated that within Eastern Dublin all development requires Planned Development Zoning and which sets the range for the minimum and maximum number of units. She stated that, while the General Plan range might go to 600 -700 units, the required PD Ordinance fixes that at a lesser amount. Therefore, a developer could not build a development of 719 units; the PD Zoning would not allow it. Cm. Goel felt that the PD Zoning would use the new basis of the upper limit of 719 units as its basis for setting its threshold lower. Ms. Faubion answered that the PD sets a maximum number of units and in this case the maximum number would be 437 units. Mr. Porto stated that the current allowable development potential on the site, based on the existing Planned Development Zoning, is 484 units. He added that the developer has proposed to build no more than 437 units; the initial study and CEQA addendum only studied 437 units. Therefore, it is intended that the developer will follow this application with another application for a Stage 2 Development Plan which will lock in the number of units, an SDR locking in the number of units and a vesting tentative map locking in the number of units. Cm. Goel referred to Page 57 of the CEQA document which mentions the Livermore Airport and its impact. He asked if this development took into consideration the potential use of the pending Kaiser property and any air path associated with that project. 41 tanning inn Coaaaaaaissio n J anuag 28, 20 ./4 (kgjukaa `JOAleeliwaif air as g e I 1 DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Porto stated that Kaiser has not submitted an application for their property and it is unknown what they will do. Cm. Goel felt Kaiser had not been considered with this project. Mr. Porto answered no; not at this time. Mr. Baker responded that, if Kaiser or some other project were to submit an application, an analysis would be done as part of that project and impacts to the surrounding areas would be considered. Cm. Goel felt that the Kaiser project would have impacts on this project. Mr. Baker asked if Cm. Goel was referring to a possible future helicopter or helipad. Cm. Goel answered yes; potentially, because the project would not have taken into account the impact of the Kaiser project. Mr. Baker answered that, if and when they submit an application and it includes a heliport that would be analyzed as part of that project. Cm. Goel referred to Page 61 of the CEQA Addendum that was related to previous CEQA documents regarding transportation and traffic. He read a section that referred to the number of impacts that could not be reduced to a level of insignificance even with mitigations. He asked if there were any thoughts about mitigation measures regarding traffic impacts. Ms. Faubion stated that the context for this CEQA document is an addendum which means the impacts of developing these sites were examined on an EIR level through the Eastern Dublin EIR, out 20 -30 years, and looked at potential traffic impacts at key intersections. Mitigations were identified where they could be, and they will continue to apply to all the development in Eastern Dublin. She stated that for some intersections there were not sufficient mitigations to reduce them all the way so they were identified as significant and unavoidable. The consequence of that was that the City Council had to make overriding considerations weighed against the benefits of the project. She stated that going through the addendum process and looking at a particular site, occasionally some mitigation might be found that arises in connection with the site. But the big picture impacts have not changed over time. She added that the CEQA document is referring back to the determination of significance to the Eastern Dublin EIR and if there are additional mitigations they are identified in the addendum or other subsequent documents. Jerry Haag, Environmental Consultant, author of the CEQA Addendum, stated that the Applicant would be required to pay the Eastern Dublin Transportation Impact Fees which help build a lot of the program improvements that are anticipated as part of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. He mentioned that there is current construction on 1 -580 to widen a portion of it which is partially paid for by the Eastern Dublin Transportation Fees. He stated that, even though the transportation issues cannot be fully mitigated, it can be helped by the fees. Cm. Goel asked Mr. Haag to explain the Comparative Trip Rate analysis table in the Addendum. He was interested in the capacity of Dublin Blvd which is currently approaching a level of service F. 41tanning Commission janua,�y 28, 20 /4 a k g p d a a a ` J O A l e e l i n g air a g e I /6 DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Haag stated that is correct. He added that, as the City Attorney pointed out, this is one piece of a large puzzle which is the Eastern Dublin Area. He stated that when the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified in 1993 they assumed that traffic would be bad but this project would be contributing fewer peak trips than was analyzed 20 years ago. Cm. Goel interpreted the information that there would be a reduction of 24 trips with the project. Mr. Haag answered that the project would be reducing 279 trips on a 24 hour basis which would be a small reduction, but a reduction. Cm. Goel asked if the analysis took into consideration that Dublin Blvd is proposed to connect with Airway Blvd and the peak flow associated with that at 2035 calculations. Mr. Haag responded that they assumed the Dublin Blvd traffic model at build out which is used for the calculation and confirmed by the City Traffic Engineer and was taken into consideration. Cm. Goel asked if the City Traffic Engineer had reviewed the document recently. Mr. Haag answered yes; he reviewed the document that is being examined tonight. Cm. Goel interpreted the statement on Page 63 of the Addendum as "if approved and constructed the project would continue to contribute significant and unavoidable accumulative project impacts as part of the larger Eastern Dublin project." Mr. Haag stated that is a true statement. He stated that there would be a small reduction; the addendum states that the City is making a small change to the 1993 EDEIR, and that document said that if of all the land uses that are assumed in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), one of the intersections will be overburdened. He stated that when the City adopted the EDSP they made a decision that there would be traffic impacts but the benefit of the project outweighed those impacts, so they approve the project anyway. He stated that the City has been operating that way in Eastern Dublin for 20 years. Ms. Faubion gave a brief background regarding the addendum process. She stated that CEQA has strict rules for when an EIR has already been prepared for a project; there are limitations as to whether and what type of review the City can require for subsequent projects. She stated that the current project will not have any worse or substantially more severe impacts than assumed the first time. She stated that the development of the project is proposed to be reduced from 484 to 437 and then the question is - is there an impact that is a new significant impact; the answer is no because the impact was identified in the 1993 EDEIR; is it substantially more severe than identified before, no; it is not worse and could be better because of the reduction in the number of units. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the "weeded patch" will be retained or will it be developed and asked Mr. Porto to point it out on the slide. Mr. Porto pointed out the area on the slide and answered that the plan was conceived after comments were received by the Applicant from the City Council at their meeting regarding the development aspects that were a concern for them in this area. The Applicant heard what City Council said and felt they produced a development that meets those concerns. 41tanning Commission Janua,�y 28, 20 /4 DRAFT DRAFT Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the hill is the area that was to be retained for viticulture. Mr. Porto answered yes. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the topography would remain but possibly be developed into vineyards. Mr. Porto answered yes. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that was a best case scenario and asked if there is a worst case scenario regarding that area. She asked if the area could be developed into anything but the vineyard as proposed. Mr. Porto answered yes; it's a hillside so it would be difficult to grow any crops other than grapes. He stated that the area needed the Rural Residential /Agricultural land use designation to allow the vineyard to occur. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the vineyard could occur if the area were designated open space. Mr. Porto answered no; it would have to be something conducive to a hillside development and grapes were the only crop that had potential. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the thought was to preserve the hill and the view corridor, could it be restored to resemble the other hills behind it. Mr. Porto asked if Chair Bhuthimethee was asking to rebuild the hills that are already there. Chair Bhuthimethee answered no; she was asking if anyone thought to keep the hill and restore it as native land as opposed to creating a vineyard. Mr. Porto answered that the land is private open space, not public open space and it is the developer's responsibility to develop it in some way. He felt that the developer will probably install landscaping to enhance what is currently there. Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing. Kevin Fryer, on behalf of both Applicants, spoke in favor of the project. He thanked Staff for their efforts on the project. He stated that there is a more detailed plan for the project but it is not ready to be submitted as yet. He stated that the idea for the "open space" and the intention to change the designation from Open Space to Rural Residential was to allow activation of the space. He felt it serves as a visual barrier and their intention is to continue that use by moving the easterly hill down and retaining the vitality and screening of the open space. He stated that, at the time the project was submitted to City Council, there was a discussion regarding potential viticulture, which has morphed over time, and the reality is that the use is very complicated. He stated that trail connectivity is an essential part of the plan and they would like to preserve some open space on the project. He stated that they initially studied 484 units on the site but their land plan is for 437 units and they hope to bring the plan to the Planning Commission in the near future. He stated that the developers have no intention of increasing that number. He stated they would like to move forward with the land plan and they are very happy with it. He 41 tanning inn Coaaaaaaissio n J anuag 28, 20 ./4 (kgjukaa .`JOAleelaaaif air as g e DRAFT DRAFT stated that City Council's direction was to maintain the essential idea of the hills and still provide additional community benefit. He stated they looked for something that would immediately provide recreation opportunities in the area and identified funding for the Astroturf fields at the Fallon Sports Park. He stated their plan is to provide the community benefit above the park fees that would otherwise be paid and to provide those funds as soon as the project is approved. He stated that the project was brought to the City Council previously and the Applicant was asked to come back and study converting additional open space, as long as the unit count did not increase, they would maintain visual screening, create an amenity, and be able to provide additional community benefit. He stated they would appreciate the opportunity to move the project forward and to address the Planning Commission's concerns. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if they cannot plant a vineyard, is it still worth it to convert the Open Space to Rural Residential /Agriculture. Mr. Fryer responded that he was not sure if the Rural Residential uses would allow for a vineyard but would defer to Staff. Mr. Porto responded that the Rural Residential /Agricultural land use gives the Applicant more opportunity to do something. He stated that the Open Space criteria of the General Plan and EDSP is limiting. He stated that in other developments land use changes were allowed from Open Space to Rural Residential /Agricultural in order to have more flexibility because they thought the Open Space land use criteria was too restrictive. Mr. Fryer mentioned that the plan will come back for the Planning Commission's review but the goal is to have something passive that would allow pedestrian access. Cm. Goel asked, besides the existing and the proposed land uses, what other combinations were reviewed. Mr. Fryer answered that they reviewed quite a few and their intention was to leave the Medium High Density on the northeast corner of the site and it was a late decision to change that. They worked with their team to find a better way to transition off the land uses to the west. He stated that they looked at a variety of land uses within medium density, but nothing less dense. He stated they focused on the medium -high and medium density, which was their vision for the site for a long time. He felt that there had been a variety of different product types reviewed in medium density on several areas within the project. Cm. Goel stated that he understood why they moved the medium high density to the western area of the site. He felt that moving up the project they could have focused more on lower density. He felt that as the hill goes up it transitions to other developments. He stated that to the east of Fallon Road is all open space across from the medium density area and was concerned how this project will look with the surrounding developments. Mr. Fryer responded that there is open space immediately east and south of Central Parkway and mixed use to the north of Central Parkway on the east side of Fallon Road and the Jordan Ranch, a mixed use townhouse project, on the corner. He felt that there is a variety of projects on that corner. He stated that being across from Fallon Sports Park and across from open space, there are more single - family traditional product types in the area. He stated their plan was to stay within the medium density range which is a slightly denser version than a low density project. 41tanning Commission janua,�y 28, 20 /4 a k g p d a a a ` J O A l e e l i n g air a g e I /9 DRAFT Chair Bhuthimethee closed the public hearing. DRAFT Cm. Goel was concerned with the location for the nearest opportunity for an elementary school and felt that was Kolb Elementary is above its capacity. He felt that if the development moves forward, the other school that is supposed to alleviate the overcrowding at Kolb, will not be built in time. Cm. Kohli stated that there are two elementary schools that are going to be built; one in Positano and one by Jordan Ranch. Cm. Goel was still concerned with the elementary schools capacity. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that this development will be less dense than what was originally planned for. Cm. Goel disagreed; and was still concerned with the density of the project. He stated that he supported the element that moves the medium density closer to Lockhart Street but felt that it created more circulation problems with a drastic impact. He felt that the City did not anticipate the level of density or parking problem at the development across from Lowes and felt that this project would add to that problem. He stated he understood the General Plan and felt it sounded nice to have $1.8 million and Phase II of the Fallon Sports Park come forward is an attractive element, but, at the end of the day, he did not feel the community is going to say that they got a nice community park, but is still sitting in traffic and can't get from point A to point B. He stated that he was concerned about the project from a complete perspective. Cm. O'Keefe stated that the Applicant has stated that they have locked in at 437 units but the range goes to 596 units. Cm. Goel stated that Staff indicated they have never gone to the maximum which is a calculation that is within the General Plan to provide a range of what the land use can deliver. Cm. O'Keefe asked Cm. Goel if he is concerned about a bait and switch where the Applicant changes his mind and instead of building 437 units they want 719 units. Cm. Goel answered no; because Staff indicated it would not be allowed to go to the upper limit. He stated that was not his concern, his concern is that, although it looks attractive at 437 units, he felt that the Planning Commission needs to look at what this development means to the overall plan. He stated that he understood, from a General Plan perspective, that it might fit nicely but some of the changes shown in Figure 2 of the Staff Report, compared to the density, he would rather keep the open space. Chair Bhuthimethee asked Staff to clarify that, if the Planning Commission denies the project, the Applicant is already approved for more than 437 units. Mr. Porto answered yes; and that the EDEIR studied 484 units in 1993 and if the development goes above that number it will trigger another environmental analysis that would head towards an EIR, therefore, it would be a significant work effort to exceed the 484 units that are already approved for under the existing General Plan Land Use designation. 41 tanning inn Coaaaaaa�issio n j a�nua�g 28, 20 ./4 DRAFT DRAFT Chair Bhuthimethee wanted to ensure that the Planning Commission understood that if they deny the project the Applicant is already approved for 484 units. Cm. Goel stated that is only 47 more units and should be put into perspective. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if there would be no Community Benefit Payment as well, if denied. Mr. Porto responded that the Community Benefit Payment is based on the development that the City Council expressed when they approved the General Plan Amendment study. They expressed the issue of taking some of the Open Space area and changing it to Rural Residential /Agriculture and possibly expanding the land use areas for development, but at a lower density. He stated that resulted in the developer offering $1.8 million up front as part of the community benefit for that allowance. Cm. O'Keefe stated that he is in support of the project and can make all the findings. Cm. Do stated that she is in support of the project and can make all the findings. She supported changing the Open Space to Rural Residential /Agriculture because, if there is open space that you cannot do anything with, it adds to the blandness of the hills. If it can be changed to make it visually better she is in support of that. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she likes the open space and the hills. Her main interest was the connectivity to the trails and what type of community benefit the City is acquiring. Cm. Goel felt that the trail alignment can still be maintained along the eastern side of the stream corridor on both proposals. He felt that there is no drastic, appealing change between the two proposals. He felt that the only attractive change is the 47 unit reduction; a $1.8 million Community Benefit; and it moves the medium high density to immediately east of Lockhart Street and takes the eastern top portion and changes it to medium density, but adds a lot more units on the top of the hill side. He stated that if the density were lower, at 400 units or less, on Fallon Road along the entire western perimeter, there would be better view appeal and may alleviate the congestion. He felt that the Planning Commission should look at the big picture in the General Plan and also felt that the Planning Commission does not have to approve every project. Chair Bhuthimethee asked Mr. Baker for help with how to proceed. Mr. Baker suggested taking a straw vote on the 3 actions related to this project and then move on to The Groves Lot 3 and do the formal actions at the end of both presentations. He mentioned the three actions before the Planning Commission: Recommending that the City Council approve the CEQA Addendum; Recommending that the City Council approve the proposed GPA/EDSPA and Recommending that the City Council approve the Planned Development Zoning and Stage 1 Development Plan. Cm. Kohli asked if the Planning Commission denies the project what is the result and if the Planning Commission recommends City Council approve the project what is the result. Chair Bhuthimethee responded that the Planning Commission is only recommending to the City Council because it is ultimately their decision. 41 tanning inn Coaaaaaaissio n J anuag 28, 20 ./4 (kgjukaa .`JOAleelaaaif W as g e I 21 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Kohli wanted to be clear as to the consequences of not recommending approval to the City Council as far as total units. Mr. Baker responded that the Planning Commission will make a recommendation the City Council who will make the final decision. If the project were not to be approved the developer is currently approved for 484 units, so they could fall back to that approval. Cm. Kohli asked if the project is approved at 484 units, could the developer go higher. Mr. Baker answered that if they wanted to go higher they would need to do a CEQA analysis and amend the PD so they would have to come back to the Planning Commission. Cm. Kohli understood that 400+ units will be built and what he felt Cm. Goel was concerned about was for the Planning Commission to take a step back and look at the development in the entire area and how the Planning Commission should approach development in general. Cm. Goel agreed with Cm. Kohli but was concerned with the number of units in the project and did not feel that this is the best package. He felt there are a lot of issues with the General Plan and many traffic issues that the Planning Commission must keep that in mind as part of their purview and understanding. He stated that the Planning Commission is making a recommendation to the City Council and he wanted to be able to say, as a Planning Commissioner, he looked at the project with full intent. Chair Bhuthimethee asked for a straw vote on the recommendations to City Council: Adopt a Resolution adopting an Addendum for Dublin Ranch Subarea 3: Chair Bhuthimethee, Cm. Do, Cm. O'Keefe, Cm. Kohli in favor Cm. Goel against Adopt a Resolution approving General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments for Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 and The Groves Lot 3: Chair Bhuthimethee, Cm. Do, Cm. O'Keefe, Cm. Kohli in favor Cm. Goel against Adopt an Ordinance approving a Planned Development Zoning District for Subarea 3 with a related Stage 1 Development Plan to replace uses adopted by Ordinance 24 -97: Chair Bhuthimethee, Cm. Do, Cm. O'Keefe, Cm. Kohli in favor Cm. Goel against The Groves Lot 3 - Discussion Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Kohli asked if the original idea for this project was for 300+ apartments. Mr. Porto answered that it was originally condominiums that would be similar to the apartments. 41 tanning inn Coaaaaaaissio n J anuag 28, 20 ./4 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Kohli asked why the number has been cut in half. Mr. Porto deferred the question to the Applicant. Cm. O'Keefe asked if there is a visual of the elevation from Dublin Blvd. Mr. Porto answered no; not a complete overall look, only individual buildings. Cm. O'Keefe mentioned to Staff that, in the future, the Planning Commission would appreciate seeing the overall look of projects that face major thoroughfares, such as Dublin Blvd. Cm. Goel referred to a table on Sheet GPA.1 in the project plans and stated that in the presentation the project is for 122 units but the table indicates 90+ units and asked for an explanation. Mr. Porto answered that the proposed SDR is for 122 units. He stated that the table Cm. Goel is referring to is the Applicant's table which does not show a range. Cm. Goel asked if the project plans are what is being approved. Mr. Baker responded that the Planning Commission is not approving all the pages in the project plans. Cm. Goel asked if the Planning Commission is reviewing the proposed SDR at a higher density than is shown on the table on Sheet GPA.1 in the project plans. Mr. Porto explained the range of the table on Sheet GPA.1. Cm. Goel felt that the elevation for the exterior of the buildings seemed different. Mr. Porto responded that this project is a significant upgrade from the Fairway Ranch project that is there now and will block it from Dublin Blvd. Cm. Goel asked how this project compares to the project to the west on Dublin Blvd. Mr. Porto responded that The Terraces are 100% stucco and also a high density site which means there are 70 du /acre. He stated that with the current project there are different buildings, which are smaller buildings and the materials incorporate stucco as well as wood and stone. He stated that it is a transitional piece of architecture going easterly and the development will tier down from the other developments along Dublin Blvd. which include; The Villas, a high density project at 32 du /acre; the parcel designated for the Promenade; and The Terraces, another high density project. Cm. Goel asked if the roof color and material type are different. Mr. Porto answered yes; but is very similar to the surrounding projects such as Fairway Ranch. Cm. Goel stated that he understands the feathering out of the projects but was concerned with the hard transition look and referred to Sheet A2.00 of the project plans. 41 tanning inn Coaaaaaaissio n J anuag 28, 20 ./4 (kqj kaa Aleelialif (11 aa g e I 23 DRAFT DRAFT Chair Bhuthimethee stated that the Planning Commission previously approved an apartment buildings project on the same site. Cm. Goel felt that the apartment buildings had a similar look and feel and the transition wasn't so hard. He felt that this project was too drastic. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that the apartment project, that was approved earlier, was higher. Mr. Porto answered yes; the apartment project was a four story, solid building located along the frontage of Dublin Blvd, with undulations but it was a much more massive structure. Cm. Goel felt that the earlier project was pushed back further from the street. Mr. Porto answered that there was a parking garage in the center of the apartment project that was completely wrapped by the buildings. He stated that the building was taller in order to screen the parking structure and was a massive front along Dublin Blvd. Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing. Kevin Fryer, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project. He responded to the question regarding why the reduction in units. He stated that the decision was due to market conditions. He apologized for not including an elevation of the buildings from Dublin Blvd. but felt that trying to fit the elevation onto an 11X17 page would make it difficult to see. He suggested that they look at Sheets L -11 and A2 and discussed those sheets. Cm. O'Keefe stated that he is very happy with the buildings but asked if the Applicant would consider including more enhancement to the sides of houses that will be seen from Dublin Blvd. He felt that the front elevation has good detail, but felt there could be more done with the sides that face Dublin Blvd. He asked if the Applicant would agree to add enhancement to those sides of the houses that face Dublin blvd. Chair Bhuthimethee agreed and stated that the previous approval addressed Dublin Blvd very uniformly but felt that there are not too many instances where the sides of the homes are visible. She asked if the Applicant would agree to further enhance those side elevations that are visible along Dublin Blvd. She also asked about the view down the middle of the project and if there will be double loaded garages. Mr. Porto answered yes; he pointed out where she was referring to on the site plan. Mr. Fryer stated that the dark line on the Dublin Blvd. frontage is an area where a landscape pocket was created to create vertical landscape opportunities to screen that area from Dublin Blvd. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if there will be some landscaping along the double loaded garages. Mr. Fryer answered yes and agreed to add enhancement to the side elevations of the units that can be seen from Dublin Blvd. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the Applicant could use more brick on the brick veneer wall so that there would be more brick than stucco along Dublin Blvd. 41 tanning inn Coaaaaaaissio n J anuag 28, 20 ./4 (kqj kaa Aleelialif 41 as g e I 24 DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Porto stated that the area Chair Bhuthimethee was referring to will be landscaped so if brick is used it will be hidden. He stated that the Applicant accentuated the brick area that will be visible. The stucco areas will be heavily planted. Cm. Goel was concerned with not having a view from Dublin Blvd. and being able to determine what it will look like. He asked if the Applicant had an elevation that would look directly onto Sheet L -9, Section A. He was concerned with the shielding element that is happening along Dublin Blvd. He stated that he is torn between looking at the architectural elements, the conceptual drawings, how the project will piece together, and the continuity with adjacent developments. He appreciated the fact that the project feathers out and that it is a lower density, but felt that the final picture is missing and asked if he could provide that clarity. Mr. Fryer deferred the question to the landscape architect for the project. Roman DeSota, landscape architect, came to the public podium to answer the question. Cm. Goel asked if there is an elevation that would show a cross section of Sheet L -9 looking directly at the project from Dublin Blvd. He stated that he would like to determine where the transitions are from east to west and from the back of the unit on Dublin Blvd. Mr. DeSota responded that the section is focusing in on one area of the pop -out. He stated that the concept of the Dublin Blvd. frontage, from landscape standpoint, is similar in materials from east to west, etc., the brick is highlighted picking parts of the architecture and integrating them into the landscaping. He stated that the pop -out toward Dublin Blvd. will be brick and located closer to the walkway. He added that the landscape plant materials is a variety of plant materials to match or pull together with the adjacent neighborhood to the west, only good plants to slope the situation, using a swath planting where plants are used in great abundance. He stated the trees will comply with the existing street tree program. Chair Bhuthimethee was concerned with the ends of the double loaded roadways and felt that the residents could drive out that way. Mr. Porto answered that there is a grade change there to prevent the residents from driving out of them or backing over a curb. Mr. DeSota responded that he tried to provide trees to screen headlights and shrubs as "barriers" at the end of each alley. Chair Bhuthimethee closed the public hearing. Cm. Do stated that she is in support of the project, liked the reduction of units and can also make the findings. Cm. O "Keefe agreed and stated that he is in support of the project. He stated that he would like to add a Condition of Approval to have Staff work with the Applicant on enhancing the sides of the units that face Dublin Blvd. including the units on the corner of Dublin and Lockhart and Dublin and Keegan. He trusts that Staff will work well with the Applicant to see that the enhancements are made that best fit within their budget and with what the Planning Commission would like. He stated that he can make the findings. 41 tanning inn Coaaaaaaissio n J anuag 28, 20 ./4 (kqj kaa Aleelialif 41 as g e I 25 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Goel was concerned with the entire project and how it pieces together and how it blends with the surrounding developments. He felt that there were missing pieces that prevented him from supporting the project. Cm. Kohli stated that he is in support of the project, likes the focus on owner occupied houses which is important to him and likes the fact that the number is reduced, referring to the issues regarding school overcrowding the Cm. Goel brought up. He agreed with the Planning Commission regarding the enhancements to the units on Dublin Blvd. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she is in support of the project and agreed with the other Commissioners that it is a good reduction in units. She stated that since this is the 4t" rendition for the same property she hoped that this would be the one to be built. She thanked the Applicant for agreeing to enhance the homes facing Dublin Blvd. She stated that she can make the findings. Added to the SDR Resolution: Condition #123: The Applicant shall work with Staff to enhance the side elevations that face Dublin Blvd., including Dublin Blvd. and Keegan Street and Dublin Blvd. and Lockhart Street exposures. On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 4 -1, with Cm. Goel voting no, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 14- 03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A CEQA ADDENDUM FOR THE DUBLIN RANCH SUBAREA 3 PROJECT RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR DUBLIN RANCH SUBAREA 3 AND THE GROVES LOT 3 PLPA- 2013 -00033 AND PLPA- 2013 -00034 �a 1102 RESOLUTION NO. 14- 05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN 41 tanning inn Coaaaaaaissio n j anuag 28, 20 ./4 (kgjukaa .`JOAleelaaaif (11 as g e 1 22 DRAFT DRAFT RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE GROVES LOT 3 TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN RESOLUTION NO. 14- 06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REZONING DUBLIN RANCH SUBAREA 3 TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PLPA 2013 -00033 �� RESOLUTION NO. 14- 07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 8164 (LOT 3) FOR 122 TOWNHOUSE /CONDOMINIUM UNITS FOR AN 8.8 -ACRE SITE (6.36 NET ACRES) KNOWN AS THE GROVES AT DUBLIN RANCH (LOT 3) LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD BETWEEN KEEGAN STREET AND LOCKHART STREET IN THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA PLPA- 2013 -00034 (APN 985 - 0048 -005) NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS — NONE OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and /or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). 10.2 Mr. Baker informed the Planning Commissioners that the Planning Commissioners Academy will be held March 26 -28, at the Burlingame Marriott Hotel. He polled the Commissioners as to their availability for the conference. 10.3 Cm. Do asked about the opening of Hobby Lobby and was concerned that they were closing all their stores. Mr. Baker responded that the Building Department has issued their building permit. 41 tanning inn Coaaaaaa�issio n j a�nua�g 28, 20 .H DRAFT DRAFT ADJOURNMENT — The meeting was adjourned at 9:37:36 PM Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Jeff Baker Assistant Community Development G:IMINUTESI20141PLANNING COMMISSIONI01.28.14 DRAFT PC MINUTES (CF).doc 41 tanning inn Coaaaaaa�issio n j a�nua�g 8, 0.14 RESOLUTION NO. 14 -03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A CEQA ADDENDUM FOR THE DUBLIN RANCH SUBAREA 3 PROJECT PLPA 2013 -00033 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Kevin Fryer, has submitted a Planning Application for residential development on Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 (Subarea 3) which would result in future development of up to 437 single family residences on an approximately 64 acre site. The project proposes General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to reallocate existing High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential land uses, to reduce and change Open Space land uses to Rural Residential /Agriculture and to increase the Stream Corridor designation. The application also proposes a Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan. The applications are collectively referred to herein as the "Project "; and WHEREAS, the Project is in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the City Council certified a Program Environmental Impact Report by Resolution 51 -93 ( "Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR ", SCH 91103064) on May 10, 1993 (resolution incorporated herein by reference). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which could not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53 -93, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, the Project is located in Dublin Ranch Area B. On November 18, 1997, the City Council adopted a Negative Declaration (ND) for the Area B -E project (Resolution 140 -97, incorporated herein by reference). The ND concluded that the potentially significant impacts of developing Areas B -E had been adequately described and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and that no new or more severe significant impacts would result from future development in Areas B -E; and WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant unavoidable impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which would apply to the Project; therefore, approval of the Project must be supported by a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, for the Subarea 3 Project, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if additional review of the proposed Project was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared an Addendum dated January 2014 describing the Subarea 3 Project and finding that the impacts of the proposed Project were adequately addressed in the prior EIR and ND; and Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, on January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Subarea 3 project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a staff report dated January 28, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference described and analyzed the Subarea 3 project, including the related Addendum, for the Planning Commission and recommended adoption of the CEQA Addendum and approval of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the CEQA Addendum as well as the prior CEQA documents, and all above - referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony before making any recommendation on 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 makes the following findings to support the determination that no further environmental review is required under CEQA for the proposed Project. These findings are based on information contained in the CEQA Addendum, prior CEQA documents, the Planning Commission staff report, and all other information contained in the record before the Planning Commission. These findings constitute a summary of the information contained in the entire record. The detailed facts to support the findings are set forth in the CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study, the prior CEQA documents, and elsewhere in the record. Other facts and information in the record that support each finding that are not included below are incorporated herein by reference- 1 . The proposed Project does not constitute substantial changes to the previous projects affecting the Project site, as addressed in the prior CEQA documents, that will require major revisions to prior documents due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of previously identified significant effects. Based on the Initial Study, all potentially significant effects of the proposed Project are the same or less than the impacts for the Eastern Dublin and Areas B -E projects which were previously addressed. The proposed Project will not result in substantially more severe significant impacts than those identified in the prior CEQA documents. All previously adopted mitigation measures continue to apply to the proposed Project and project site as applicable. 2. The Initial Study and Addendum did not identify any new significant impacts of the proposed Project that were not analyzed in prior CEQA documents. 3. The City is not aware of any new information of substantial importance or substantial changes in circumstances that would result in new or substantially more severe impacts or meet any other standards in CEQA Section 21166 and related CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162/3. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends the following to the City Council- 2 of 3 1. No further environmental review under CEQA is required for the proposed Project because there is no substantial evidence in the record as a whole that any of the standards under Sections 21166 or 15162/3 are met. 2. The City has properly prepared a CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study under CEQA Guidelines section 15164 to explain its decision not to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or conduct further environmental review for the proposed Project. 3. The City Council adopt the resolution attached as Exhibit A (incorporated herein by reference) adopting the CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study (Attachment 1 to Exhibit A) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 for the Project and make any further required CEQA findings. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of January 2014 by the following vote: AYES: Bhuthimethee, Do, O'Keefe, Kohli NOES: Goel ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director G:IPA #120131PLPA- 2013 -00033 DUBLIN RANCH Subarea 31PC Mtg 01.28.141pc_reso _ recom _ addendum.doc 3 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR DUBLIN RANCH SUBAREA 3 AND THE GROVES LOT 3 PLPA- 2013 -00033 AND PLPA- 2013 -00034 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Kevin Fryer, has submitted Planning Applications for residential development on two adjacent properties. Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 (Subarea 3) would result in future development of up to 437 single family residences on an approximately 64 acre site. The project proposes General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to reallocate existing Medium High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential land uses, to reduce and change Open Space land uses to Rural Residential /Agriculture and to increase the Stream Corridor designation. The project also proposes a PD rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan. The Groves Lot 3 (Lot 3) proposes a residential development of up to 122 townhouse condominiums on approximately 6.6 acres. The project proposes a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendment to change the existing High Density Residential land use designation to Medium High Density Residential. The project also proposes a PD rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan to establish the zoning and development standards for the project, as well as a Site Development Review permit and Vesting Tentative Map 8164. Because of the statutory limitation on General Plan amendments per year, the two applications are being processed in a consolidated action and are collectively known as the "project "; and WHEREAS, the General Plan amendment for Subarea 3 would change the land use designations as follows: reduce Medium -High Density Residential from 8.6 acres to 7.5 acres and move this use from the northeast area of the site to the western area of the site along Lockhart Street; increase Medium Density Residential from 27.2 acres to 38 acres along either side of an open space corridor; designate 14.5 acres of existing Open Space as Rural Residential /Agriculture (as a partial replacement for 24.9 acres of existing Open Space land use designation proposed for residential and rural residential /agriculture use); and increase the existing designated Stream Corridor from 1.3 acres to 2 acres. No changes are proposed for the existing 2 -acre Neighborhood Park designation. The General Plan amendment for Lot 3 would redesignate the entire site from High Density Residential to Medium -High Density Residential. Comparable amendments to the land use designations and locations for both sites would be made to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Specific Plan or EDSP). In addition, other provisions of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would be amended to ensure consistency with the modified land use designations for the two sites; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a CEQA Addendum to a prior EIR and ND for Subarea 3. For Lot 3, the project is within the scope of the program analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR as to land use, density and development assumptions, and also within the development assumptions of a subsequent 1997 ND; therefore, no additional environmental review is required, as documented in the attached draft resolution; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Subarea 3 and Lot 3 projects, including the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated January 28, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference described and analyzed the Subarea 3 and Lot 3 projects for the Planning Commission, including the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments. The Staff Report recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14 -03 recommending that the City Council adopt a CEQA Addendum for the Subarea 3 project, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission used their independent judgment and considered the Staff Report, the CEQA Addendum for Subarea 3, the prior EIR and other CEQA documents, and all reports, recommendations, and testimony referenced above prior to making any recommendations on the Subarea 3 and Lot 3 projects. 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 adopt the resolution attached as Exhibit A, incorporated herein by reference, approving General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to change the land use designations as proposed for Subarea 3 and Lot 3. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 28th day of January, 2014, by the following votes: AYES: Bhuthimethee, Do, O'Keefe, Kohli NOES: Goel ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director G: 1PAM20131PLPA- 2013 -00033 DUBLIN RANCH Subarea 3iPC Mtg 01.28.141 c reso reco pa-spa for subarea 3_10t 3 (an 2014).doc 2 RESOLUTION NO. 14 -05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REZONING DUBLIN RANCH SUBAREA 3 TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PLPA 2013 -00033 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Kevin Fryer, has submitted a Planning Application for residential development on Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 (Subarea 3) which would result in future development of up to 437 single family residences on an approximately 64 acre site ( "Project "). The project proposes General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to reallocate existing Medium High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential land uses, to reduce and change Open Space land uses to Rural Residential /Agriculture and to increase the Stream Corridor designation; and WHEREAS, the project would rezone Subarea 3 to the Planned Development zoning district and would approve a related Stage 1 Development Plan for future development of up to 437 dwelling units along either side of a stream corridor and open space area; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a CEQA addendum to a prior EIR and ND for Subarea 3; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Subarea 3 project, including the proposed Planned Development rezoning, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated January 28, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference described and analyzed the Subarea 3 project for the Planning Commission, including the proposed Planned Development rezoning. The Staff Report recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed rezoning; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14 -03 recommending that the City Council adopt a CEQA addendum for the Subarea 3 project, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission used their independent judgment and considered the Staff Report, the Addendum and prior CEQA documents, and all reports, recommendations, and testimony referenced above prior to making any recommendations on the Subarea 3 project, including the proposed rezoning. 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 adopt the ordinance attached as Exhibit A, rezoning Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 to the Planned Development zoning district and approving a related Stage 1 Development Plan. The Planning Commission recommendation is based on the Staff Report analysis and recommendation and on the findings set forth in the attached draft ordinance. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 28th day of January 2014, by the following votes: AYES: Bhuthimethee, Do, O'Keefe, Kohli NOES: Goel ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director G: 1PAM20131PLPA- 2013 -00033 DUBLIN RANCH Subarea 3iPC Mtg 01. 28. 14ip c_ reso_ reco_pd_ ord_for_subarea_3_(an_2014).doc %i