HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 The Green Mixed Use Project or
19 82 STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK
�! CITY COUNCIL File#400-20/410-30/420-30/4
600-60
�GtC
DATE: April 21, 2015
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Christopher L. Foss, City Manager "
SUBJECT: The Green Mixed Use Project — General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment, Planned Development Rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan, Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings only),
Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement, and Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (PLPA-2013-00013)
Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The proposed Green Mixed Use Project includes approximately 37,000 square feet of retail and
restaurant buildings with associated outdoor seating areas and six residential neighborhoods
with 372 units in multiple buildings on a 27.5 acre site. The project includes related surface
parking lots, installation of utilities and services, site landscaping, pedestrian plazas, and
concepts for the design of identification signs. The current request includes approval of a
General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development
Rezone, Site Development Review for the commercial portion of the project, Vesting Tentative
Map, and a Development Agreement. Certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report is also being considered. Site Development Review for the residential portion of
the project will come at a later date.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None at this time. The costs associated with processing The Green Mixed Use Project are
borne by the Applicant.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing, deliberate, and take the
following actions-
1. Adopt the Resolution Certifying an Environmental Impact Report, Adopting Environmental
Findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program Under CEQA for The Green Mixed Use Project;
2. Adopt the Resolution Amending the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for The
Green Mixed Use Project;
3. Waive the first reading and INTRODUCE an Ordinance Rezoning 27.5 Acres at 5144 and
5344 Martinelli Way to a Planned Development Zoning District and Approving the Related
Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan for The Green Mixed Use Project;
Page 1 of 9 ITEM NO. 6.1
4. Waive the first reading and INTRODUCE an Ordinance Approving a Development
Agreement between the City of Dublin and Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place LLC related to
The Green Mixed Use Project; and
5. Adopt the Resolution Approving Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings only) and
Vesting Tentative Map 8203 for The Green Mixed Use Project.
Submitted By 'Reviewed By
Community Development Director Assistant City Manager
DESCRIPTION
Background
The project site is vacant and is approximately 27.5 acres in size. It is located at the southwest
corner of Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way. The project site is shown below.
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
yea
E
I � 0
IrtrtI
i
The project site currently has General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use
designations of "General Commercial" and is in a Planned Development Zoning District
(Ordinance 34-08). The existing Planned Development Zoning District was approved in 2008,
and permits the development of a 305,000 square foot commercial center. However, the project
was never constructed and a new development concept is being proposed for the site.
Page 2 of 9
At the request of the Applicant, Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place Land Company, on February 5,
2013, the City Council approved the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendment Study to consider changing the land use designations for the parcel from
"General Commercial" to "Mixed Use" in order to accommodate a future mixed use
commercial/residential project on the site (Attachments 1 and 2). When the City Council
approved the initiation of the General Plan Amendment Study, Staff was directed to prepare a
Fiscal Impact Analysis of the proposed land use change. On September 17, 2013 Staff
presented the completed analysis to the City Council for their review and consideration
(Attachment 3).
The City Council held a Study Session on July 15, 2014. The Study Session was intended to
provide the City Council with an overview of the proposed project and an opportunity for Staff
and the Applicant to receive City Council feedback and direction on the project and the terms of
the Development Agreement. The project design was generally well-received, although City
Councilmembers expressed continued reservations about the site converting from commercial
uses to a mixed use project that is primarily residential. The City Council provided direction on
the terms of the Development Agreement and the provision of affordable housing on the site.
A City Council Public Hearing to consider this project was originally scheduled on
September 16, 2014. However, the applicant requested a continuance. A public hearing was
held on November 4, 2014 and the City Council voted to postpone consideration of the project
until after the City Council vacancy was filled. A public hearing was held on February 3, 2015
and the applicant requested that the item be continued to the City Council meeting on April 21,
2015. Notice of this public hearing has been provided as further described below.
Proiect Proposal
The Green Mixed Use project is proposed to include 37,000 square feet of retail and restaurant
buildings with associated outdoor dining areas and 372 attached multi-family residential units.
The Applicant is currently requesting approval of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan, Site Development Review for the commercial portion of the project only, a
Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide the entire 27.5 acre site into multiple commercial and
residential parcels, a Development Agreement, and certification of a Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (Final SEIR). It is anticipated that Site Development Review for
the residential component of the project will be brought forward for consideration at a later date.
ANALYSIS
The analysis below describes the various components of the project.
GENERAL PLAN and EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS
General Plan Amendments
Amendments to the General Plan are necessary in order to ensure the project, as proposed, is
consistent with the document. The main amendment to the General Plan is to change the land
use designation for the subject parcel from "General Commercial" to "Mixed Use" to enable a
combination of commercial and residential uses on the project site. Figure 1-1 (General Plan
Land Use Map) shall be amended accordingly. Table 2.2 (Land Use Development Potential:
Eastern Extended Planning Area) shall be updated to subtract 27.5 acres from the General
Commercial land use category and add 27.5 acres to the Mixed Use land use category.
Page 3 of 9
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments
Similar to the General Plan Amendment, Figure 4.1 (Land Use Map) shall be amended to
change the land use designation for the subject parcel from "General Commercial" to "Mixed
Use".
Table 4.1 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary) shall be updated to subtract the
project acreage from the General Commercial land use category and add the project acreage to
the Mixed Use land use category. Table 4.2 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Population and
Employment Summary) shall be updated to subtract the development potential square footage
from the General Commercial land use category and add the development potential square
footage and residential population to the Mixed Use land use category. Table 4.3 (Projected
Jobs/Housing Balance) shall be updated to include the amended jobs number based on the land
use change from General Commercial to Mixed Use. Lastly, Table 4.11 (Hacienda Gateway
Subarea Development Potential) shall be updated to subtract the project acreage from the
General Commercial land use category and add the project acreage to the Mixed Use land use
category.
The Resolution approving amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
for the project is included as Attachment 4 to this Staff Report.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE
The application includes a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan.
A Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan is proposed in accordance with Section 8.32.040 of
the Dublin Zoning Ordinance and addresses both the commercial and residential portions of the
project. The Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan allows for up to 40,000 square feet of retail
commercial development on the project site and up to 400 residential units. This is slightly
larger than the proposed project and is the maximum amount of commercial square footage and
maximum residential unit intensity studied in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for
this project. This was done in order to allow the ultimate size of the project to be adjusted
slightly as the exact building sizes and locations were determined, assuming all other
development standards, including the provision of required parking, could be met.
The Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan details the permitted and conditional uses; site
development standards, architectural and landscape standards and guidelines; data on site
area, proposed densities and maximum amount of development on the project site. Please
refer to Attachment 4 for the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan.
The Planned Development Zoning specifies the parking requirements for the overall project site
and includes the overall site layout, including parking. Sheet C1.03 of the Project Plans (Exhibit
A to Attachment 5) illustrates the locations of the various parking spaces on the project site for
both commercial and residential uses.
The Planned Development Zoning requires 2 enclosed parking spaces plus 0.8 guest spaces
per residential unit for the residential portion of the project. In order to validate the provision of
0.8 guest parking spaces per residential unit in this Planned Development Zoning District, a
parking analysis was prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants and accepted by the City's
Traffic Engineer.
Page 4 of 9
The Planned Development Ordinance that includes the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan
is included as Attachment 5 to this Staff Report.
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Site Development Review approval is requested only for the commercial portion of the project
site at this time. Site Development Review for the residential portion of the project will follow at
a later date. The following is a summary of the key components of the commercial portion of the
project associated with the Site Development Review.
Overall Project Design
The project, as proposed, is designed to include approximately 37,000 square feet of
commercial buildings with enclosed outdoor dining areas and related improvements. The full
set of Project Plans is included as Exhibit A to Attachment 6 to this Staff Report.
The site is oriented to two north-south linear open space elements that include a plaza in the
commercial portion of the project and a future common green space in the future residential
portion of the project. This open space element, referred to as "The Green," aligns with the
main north-south entry into the Persimmon Place commercial development on the north side of
Martinelli Way.
Site Plan, Access, and Circulation:
The project site is bounded by Martinelli Way to the north, Interstate 580 to the south, Arnold
Road to the west and Hacienda Drive to the east. The overall orientation of the project is inward
to the pedestrian plaza, with seven of the eight commercial buildings forming the core of the
project and aligning on the north-south axis of the main project entry. Buildings 100, 200, and
300 are at the northern end of the project site and the other five are centered on The Green.
Building 800 sits in the middle of The Green plaza and it provides a visual anchor and buffer
between the commercial and residential areas (Attachment 6, Sheet A1.0.1 of the Project
Plans).
The main parking field for the commercial portion of the project is near Building 100, but there
are also parking areas at the back of Buildings 400-700. Attachment 6, Sheet C1.03 illustrates
the location of the parking areas relative to the commercial buildings.
A main drive aisle bisects the site in a north-south direction, connecting to the Persimmon Place
entry on the north. This drive aisle serves as the main vehicular and pedestrian access from
Martinelli into the project site. The entry off Arnold Road will primarily serve the future
residential development, but will also provide access to the commercial buildings. There is also
a right-in, right-out driveway providing access to the main commercial parking area between
Buildings 100 and 200 along Martinelli Way.
New bicycle facilities will be provided along Martinelli Way in the form of a Class I, ten foot wide
multi use path and along Arnold Road in the form of a Class II six foot wide, in-street bike lane.
Bicycle facilities already exist on Hacienda Drive. Bike lockers as well as conventional bike
racks will be provided on site. Pedestrian access to and around the site is illustrated on
Attachment 6, Sheet C1.04 of the Project Plans. The Project Developer will be providing
enhanced paving inside the intersection at Martinelli and in the crosswalks north across
Martinelli (at Hacienda) and east across Hacienda (at Martinelli). The Developers of the
Page 5 of 9
Persimmon Place shopping center are providing enhanced crosswalks that connect both
developments to one another.
Architecture:
The design aesthetic of the commercial buildings offers a modern interpretation of agrarian
vernacular architecture that had a place in the Tri-Valley in the early- to mid- 20th century. The
look and feel of the commercial district and complementary residential neighborhoods are
intended to be a welcome counterpoint to more traditional suburban communities.
The buildings are designed to incorporate authentic and rich materials that are employed in their
natural state, including heavy use of metal, wood, and glass as the main building materials. The
use of stucco is understated and siding is utilized in hues that allow the texture and scale to be
prominent. Bold colors are used sparingly, and only as an accent.
Features such as different wall planes, heights, wall textures, storefront designs, canopies,
trellises, signs, light fixtures, and landscaping contribute layers of detail at the pedestrian level
both along the covered pedestrian promenades and in The Green at the center of the
commercial district. Comfortable, functional outdoor plazas where people will gather and
socialize, with landscaping, outdoor seating, enhanced paving treatment, and other features
provide an appropriate urban scale for the center.
Sheets A3.0.1 through A3.1.8 of the Project Plan Set (Exhibit A to Attachment 6) illustrate the
color building elevations and material notations for each of the buildings on the project site. The
building material and color palette to be utilized throughout the retail center will be provided for
Planning Commission review at the public hearing.
Parking:
The proposed commercial component of the project includes the provision of 299 parking
spaces which exceeds the 267 spaces that are required to meet the projected demand based
on future uses envisioned for the center, including the enclosed outdoor dining areas that will be
provided for the benefit of specific tenants. The remaining (299-267=32) 32 spaces will help to
satisfy the guest parking for the future residential component of the project. The parking table is
noted on Sheet A1.0.1 of the Project Plans (Exhibit A to Attachment 6).
Landscaping:
The project site is focused around a central green and the landscape concept emphasizes the
creation of a comfortable pedestrian environment with amenities that complement the
architectural vision of the project. With the enhanced paving throughout the commercial areas
and generous sidewalks along the main north-south circulation routes that are adorned with
street trees and pedestrian-scaled lighting, the project provides a strong pedestrian connection
both between the residential and commercial portions of the project as well as with its neighbors
to the north, east, and future neighbors to the west.
Street trees will be installed along the project perimeter adjacent to the sidewalks within the
public right of way. The project perimeter along Interstate 580 will have a six-foot tall wrought
iron fence that will eventually be covered in vines and landscaping to help provide a visual
buffer between the freeway and the future residential units. Because this area is heavily
occupied by a wide variety of utilities, finding locations to plant trees without interfering with
underground installations proves difficult. Instead, the fence will be installed and the area will
be planted with species that will grow up and through the fence to eventually provide a solid
landscape screen without the bulk and starkness of a wall.
Page 6 of 9
In addition to the trees provided in the parking lot and along the front of the retail/restaurant
buildings, two pedestrian pathways have been designed to provide a travel route between
Martinelli Way and the front of the two main buildings. Trees in wells with decorative grates will
be planted along these pedestrian pathways.
The site has several dedicated outdoor seating areas that are adjacent to future restaurant
commercial tenant spaces: at Buildings 100, 200, 300, 400, and 800. These spaces will be
activated with tables and chairs, planters, and other outdoor site furniture.
The landscape sheets (L2.0-L14.0) of the Project Plans (Exhibit A to Attachment 6) provide
enlargements of the key areas on the project site, the designs for both the Commercial and
Residential Green Plazas, and samples of materials to be utilized in these common open
spaces areas.
The Resolution approving Site Development Review for the commercial portion of the project is
included as Attachment 6 to this Staff Report.
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 8203
The Applicant is requesting to subdivide the three parcels that currently comprise the 27.5 acre
project site into 96 parcels: one 5.8 acre commercial parcel, 60 residential parcels with multiple
units in each building/parcel, and 35 street/circulation/parking area parcels. There will be a
reciprocal parking agreement and reciprocal access agreements between the commercial and
residential parcels to ensure that residential guest parking can be accommodated in the
commercial parking lots. The proposed Vesting Tentative Map conforms to the City of Dublin
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as proposed to be amended, and proposed
Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, subject to the findings and Conditions of Approval.
Sheet TM2.01 of the Project Plans (Exhibit A to Attachment 6) illustrates the proposed
subdivision of the parcels. The Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Map 8203 is included as
Attachment 6 to this Staff Report.
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.
Development Agreements are approved by an ordinance of the City Council upon
recommendation by the Planning Commission. The proposed Development Agreement (Exhibit
A to Attachment 7) applies to the entire 27.5 acre site and was drafted with input from City Staff,
the project proponent, and the City Attorney.
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 years with an option to extend for up to five additional years with
payment of$200,000 per year the agreement is extended (Development Agreement Section 6).
Page 7 of 9
The City also benefits from entering into the Development Agreement with the property owner.
Among other things, the Development Agreement regulates the phasing of the project and helps
facilitate restaurant users. Under the terms of the Development Agreement Exhibit D, issuance
of residential building permits is tied to the completion of the commercial components of the
project. Exhibit B of the Development Agreement also requires the Developer to make a
community benefit payment of$2,790,000 ($7,500/unit). A portion of these funds will be used to
pay the Dublin San Ramon Services District capacity reserve fees for local and regional sewage
systems for restaurant users within the Project as an economic development tool to entice
restaurant users.
The proposed project is subject to the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Chapter 8.68 of the
Zoning Ordinance) and is required to set aside 12.5% of the units (i.e. 47 units) in the project as
affordable units or as otherwise determined by the City Council to satisfy the Inclusionary
Zoning Regulations. The Development Agreement Exhibit C specifies the means by which the
developer will satisfy this requirement which includes construction of 14 on-site affordable units,
payment of $1,600,000 as in-lieu fees for 16 affordable units, and the purchase of affordable
housing credits to satisfy 17 affordable units.
The Ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and
Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place LLC is included as Attachment 7 to this Staff Report.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
On August 26, 2014 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on The Green Mixed Use
project. The Planning Commission had a robust discussion on the proposed General Plan
Amendment from Commercial to Mixed Use, several of the environmental aspects of the project
included traffic, air quality, noise, and the proposed project design. At the conclusion of the
discussion, the Planning Commission voted 3-2 to adopt five Resolutions recommending
approval of the project to the City Council. The August 26, 2014 draft meeting minutes are
included as Attachment 8 to the Staff Report and Planning Commission Resolutions 14-47, 14-
48, 14-49, 14-50, and 14-51 (without attachments) are included as Attachment 9.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was prepared to address potential
environmental impacts of The Green Mixed Use Project. The Green Mixed Use Project SEIR
(SCH# 2013072032) was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The Draft SEIR was released for public review for a 45-day period, from May 7, 2014
to June 23, 2014. Comments were received from six public agencies and interested parties.
The comment letters, along with the City's response to those comments, are contained in the
Final SEIR. The Draft and Final SEIRs are included as Exhibit A to Attachment 10 of this Staff
Report.
As required by CEQA, the Final SEIR (that includes the Response to Comments) was sent
directly to those agencies that provided comments on the Draft EIR. The SEIR (comprised of
the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR) is available for review at City Hall during normal business hours.
The documents are also posted on the City's website.
The Resolution recommending City Council certification of the Final SEIR is included as
Attachment 10 to this Staff Report.
Page 8 of 9
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH
A notice of this public hearing was published in the Valley Times, mailed to all property owners
and tenants within 300 feet of the project area boundaries, and to all parties who spoke at the
public hearing on the project on February 3, 2015. In addition, all persons who have expressed
an interest in being notified of actions related to this project were notified via email.
The City Council received a number of letters in support of the project, which are included as
Attachment 11.
The Staff Report for this public hearing was also available on the City's website.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Council Staff Report dated February 5, 2013 without
Attachments
2. City Council Resolution 09-13
3. City Council Staff Report dated September 17, 2013
4. Resolution amending the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan for The Green Mixed Use Project
5. Ordinance rezoning 27.5 acres at 5144 and 5344 Martinelli Way to a
Planned Development Zoning District and approving the related
Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan for The Green Mixed Use Project
6. Resolution approving a Site Development Review Permit for the
Commercial Buildings and Vesting Tentative Map 8203 for The
Green Mixed Use Project, with the Project Plans included as
Exhibit A
7. Ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the City of
Dublin and Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place LLC related to The
Green Mixed Use Project, with the Development Agreement included
as Exhibit A
8. Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated August 26, 2014
9. Planning Commission Resolutions 14-47, 14-48, 14-49, 14-50, and
14-51
10.Resolution certifying an Environmental Impact Report, adopting
Environmental Findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations,
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program under CEQA for
The Green Mixed Use Project, with the Draft and Final SEIRs
included as Exhibit A
11. Link to public comment letters received regarding the project
Page 9 of 9
STAFF REI ORT CIT'Y CLERK
File #420- 0
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: February 5, 20113
Td: Honorable Mayor and City Counciilmembers
FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager � °�
SUBJECT': Green on Park. Place General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Study Initiation Request
Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider whether to initiate a General Flan and Specific Plan Amendment
Study to change bath the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations
for 27.45 acres of property at 5144 and 5344 Hacienda Drive from General Commercial to a
new Mixed Use land use designation. This item was originally noticed for the December 18,
2012 City Council meeting, and was postponed to this meeting at the Applicant's request.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
No financial impact to the City. All casts associated with preparing the General Plan and
Specific Plan Amendment Study, if authorized by the City Council, would be borne by the
Applicant.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council either adopt a Resolution approving the initiation of a
General Plan and Eastern Dubbin Specific Plan Amendment Study to change the land use
designation on approximately 27.45 acres at 5144 and 5344 Hacienda give from General
Commercial to a new Mixed Use land use designation; OR adopt a Resolution denying the
initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to change the
land use designation on approximately 27.45 acres at 5144 and 5344 Hacienda Drive from
General Commercial to a new Mixed Use land use designation.
rJ ,
o
m..
Submitted By Reviewed By
Director of Community Development Assistant City Manager
DESCRIPTION:
StockbridgelBHV Emerald Place Land Company, LLP is requesting City Council consideration
to initiate a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study on 27.45 acres of
property they own at the northwest corner of Hacienda Drive and Interstate 580.
Page 1 of 5 ITEM NO. 8,2
The project site is shown in the Vicinity Map below:
Figure 1: Project Vicinity
I P f S
! I'
i
F"roposed Dublin SAP/sybase
crossings project
site
r
Hacienda
4�� Transit � „
1 crossings
center �� 'I
Q
A
Project � ;
Site
a�
The property currently has a General Plan lend use designation of General Commercial and is
entitled for a 808,000 square foot shopping center branded "The Green on Park Place"'. The
pr'oje'ct was approved by the City Council in 2008 and consisted of a Stage 2 Planned
Development Rezoning, Site Development Review, and approval of a five-year Development
Agreement. The Development Agreement vests the project entitlements through December 18,
2013.
The current General Plan land use designation for the subject property and the surrounding
properties are shown in the figure on the following page.:
Page 2 of 5
Figure 2 General Plan Land Use
The existing General
land
Commercial
designation t accommodates es
a; range of regional- and
community-serving retail„
service, and office uses.
Campus office Uses anticipated in this
designation include, but are
not limited toy: retail uses all
offi ce uses, hotels, banks,
S/Pugauuc F;ecre ion:'; service uses, and
restaurants and rather eating
and drinking uses. Mixed
use projects incorporating
o/%/ G rrnp�a Office
retain, service, and/o�r office
General
uses are encouraged, with
-. " Cc�rrnercial
residential uses also allowed
Campus Office as part of the mix when
// ;;, �Gemerall +fiilllllllullu o' location and design ensure
bra ect site: qi
i��� Crr�merc� compatibility.
Gtockbriidge/BHV Emerald
Place Land Company, LLP
S ROAD is requesting that the City
Council initiate a General
Plan and Eastern Dubbin
Specific Plan Amendment Study to examine changing the land use designation for the 27.45
acre parcel from General Commercial to a new Mixed Use designation that would allow
medium-high to high-density residential and commercial uses. The Applicant's intent is to
design a residential and retail development at this site that includes between 20,000 to 40,000
square feet of commercial retail uses and approximately 450 to 750 dwelling units, depending
on product type (Attachment 1 .
Staff has concerns with the proposed conversion of this 27.45 acre site from General
Commercial to a predominantly residential project with limited retail square footage. Staffs
concerns include:
1. Loss of prime commercial real estate on the 1-580 corridor in a key location across the
street from an existing regional-serving power center (Hacienda Crossings);
. Challenges with locating residential units immediately adjacent to Interstate 580,
including the potential for multi-story residential buildings to block visibility of commercial
uses and the need to study and mitigate air quality and noise impacts can future residents;
.. Impacts to the City's park deficit by adding several hundred new residential units without
the corresponding provision of parkland and property designated for semi-public facilities;
4. Adding new residents in lieu of adding new commercial businesses will negatively impact
the City's jobs-housing balance;
Page 3 of 5
5. Potential pressure to convert other nearby sites (designated Campus Office) to
residential uses-,
6. Impacts, to the City's General Fund as a result of adding new residents (and the
corresponding cost to provide services) to a prime commercial site that was intended to
provide sales tax revenue, services for the community, and employment; and
7. Potential impacts to nearby properties that anticipate developing medium-high and high-
density residential uses (i.e. Dublin Crossing, Esprit/Metropolitan site at the Transit
Center).
Due to the concerns regarding the project's potential impacts noted above, Staff is not
supportive of the requested General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study
as currently proposed. However, Staff has prepared draft Resolutions both approving and
denying the initiation of a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment Study for the City
Council's consideration. The Resolutions are included with this Staff Report as Attachments 2
and 3.
City Staff presented a copy of the request letter (Attachment 1) to the standing Economic
Development Committee as an informational item. The Committee expressed concerns about
the request as proposed and, more specifically, about the collective reduction in commercial
retail square footage in this area beyond what was originally anticipated at 305,000 square feet.
If the City Council determines that a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Study should be initiated, Staff will begin an examination of the concerns noted above and will
return to the City Council with a brief fiscal analysis of the proposed project to determine
whether those concerns are valid. Once the results of the fiscal analysis are known, the City
Council can direct Staff to further process the Amendment Study or conclude the study at that
time. If the City Council decides to proceed with the Amendment Study, Staff would then:
1. Determine the associated impacts from the land use change-,
2. Conduct the appropriate level of environmental review and documentation;
3. Perform any additional studies that may be required; and
4. Prepare an analysis of the project for consideration by the Planning Commission and the
City Council.
Work on the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study would be
completed concurrently with processing any other entitlements that are requested by the
Applicant. Once the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study is
complete, Staff would then bring the application to the Planning Commission for their
recommendation to City Council. The project would then move forward to the City Council for
their consideration.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTSIPUBLIC OUTREACH:
Public noticing is not required to review a request to initiate a General Plan Amendment Study.
Although not required, the City mailed notices to all property owners and tenants within 300 feet
of the subject property. A notice was also published in the Valley Times and posted in the
designated posting places. A copy of this Staff Report was provided to the Applicant.
Page 4 of 5
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff recommends that the initiation of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment Study be found exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
under Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Information Collection).
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Applicant's Request Letter dated Nlovember 16, 2012
2. Resolution approving the initiation of a General Plan and Specific
Plan Amendment Study to change both the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations, for 27.45 acres
of property at 5144 and 5344 Hacienda Drive from General
Commercial to a new Mixed Use land use designation
3. Resolution denying the initiation of a General Plan and Specific Plan
Amendment Study to change both the General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan land use designations for 27.45 acres of
property at 5144 and 5344 Hacienda Drive from General Commercial
to a new Mixed Use land use designation
Page 5 of 5
RESOLUTION NO. 9-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC
PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON
APPROXIMATELY 27.45 ACRES AT 5144 AND 5344 HACIENDA DRIVE FROM GENERAL
COMMERCIAL TO A NEW MIXED USE LAND USE DESIGNATION
(APNS 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-00, AND 986-0033-006-00)
WHEREAS, Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place Land Company, LLP is requesting that the City
Council initiate a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to examine
changing the land use designation for the 27.45 acre parcel from General Commercial to a new
Mixed Use designation that would allow medium-high to high-density residential and commercial
uses; and
WHEREAS, the initiation request has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was found to be Categorically Exempt under
Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted outlining the issues surrounding the request; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all such reports, recommendations, and
testimony hereinabove set forth, and supports the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment Study.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does
hereby approve the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Study to change the land use designation on approximately 27.45 acres at 5144 and 5344 Hacienda
Drive from General Commercial to a new Mixed Use land use designation.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of February 2013, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Biddle, Hart, Haubert, and Mayor Sbranti
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Mayor
ATT T:
City Clerk
Reso No. 9-13,Adopted 2-5-13, Item 8.2 Page 1 of 1
or
19 82 STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK
` CITY COUNCIL File #420-30
DATE: September 17, 2013
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Joni Pattillo City Manager""'"
SUBJECT: "The Green" Fiscal Impact Analysis (PLPA-2013-00013)
Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will receive a status report on the Fiscal Impact Analysis for Regency Centers
and The Green, which are two General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment studies
that are currently underway. When the General Plan Amendment Study was initiated for The
Green, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a Fiscal Impact Analysis for their consideration
and to determine if the General Plan Amendment Study should continue or be concluded. Staff
is requesting the City Council to review the Fiscal Impact Analysis and provide direction on how
to proceed with General Plan Amendment Study.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
All costs associated with the General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment Study, including the Fiscal
Impact Analysis, are borne by the Applicant. Therefore, preparation of this Study does not have
a financial impact to the City.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the status report on the Fiscal Impact Analysis
for The Green; and provide direction to Staff and the Applicant on whether the General
Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study on The Green should continue or be
concluded.
Submitted By Reviewed By
Director of Community Development Assistant City Manager
Page 1 of 4 ITEM NO. 7.1
DESCRIPTION:
On February 5, 2013, the City Council initiated a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment Study for 27.45 acres of property at the northwest corner of Hacienda Drive and
Interstate 580 owned by Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place Land Company, LLP.
The project site is shown in the Vicinity Map below:
Figure 1: Project Vicinity
r r r 1 j F
rtN
Proposed Dublin SAP/Sybase
Crossings project � "
site
d
P
w Proposed
Village @Dublin
r Transit
i Hacienda
Crossings yrd
Center �� '
The Green site
The property currently has a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation of
General Commercial and is entitled for a 305,000 square foot shopping center branded "The
Green on Park Place". The project was approved by the City Council in 2008 and consisted of a
Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning, Site Development Review, and approval of a five-year
Development Agreement. The Development Agreement vests the project entitlements through
December 18, 2013.
The existing General Commercial land use designation accommodates a range of regional- and
community-serving retail, service, and office uses.
On February 5, 2013, Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place Land Company, LLP received
authorization from the City Council to initiate a General Plan Amendment Study to determine
whether the land use designation for the 27.45 acre parcel should be changed from General
Page 2 of 4
Commercial to Mixed Use in order to allow medium to medium-high density residential and
commercial uses. If the City Council were to ultimately approve this change in the land use
designation, the Applicant's intent is to design a residential and retail development at this site
that includes approximately 40,000 square feet of commercial retail uses, and approximately
400 residential units with a combination of product types.
When City Staff presented the General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment request to the City
Council on February 5, 2013, the staff report outlined several concerns with the proposed
conversion of the site from General Commercial to a predominantly residential project with
limited retail square footage. Staff's concerns included the potential fiscal impacts to the City's
General Fund as a result of adding new residents (and the corresponding cost to provide
services) to a prime commercial site that was intended to provide sales tax revenue, services for
the community, and employment opportunities.
The City Council initiated the General Plan Amendment Study and directed Staff to prepare a
fiscal analysis of the proposed project for consideration in order to determine if the General Plan
Amendment Study should proceed. The Fiscal Impact Analysis is complete. Staff is requesting
the City Council to review the Fiscal Impact Analysis and provide direction on whether to
continue processing the General Plan Amendment Study or conclude the Study.
ANALYSIS:
The City retained Keyser Marston Associates to conduct an analysis of the fiscal impacts of both
the proposed The Green project and the proposed Village @ Dublin Retail Project, which are
adjacent to one another. While these are two separate projects, their potential impacts are
interrelated. The analysis (Attachment 1) compared the existing land use development potential
on each site with the project that is proposed on each site, as follows:
The Village @ Dublin site The Green site
............................................................................................................................................................................................ ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Existing GP: Proposed Project: Existing Approvals: Proposed Project:
Campus Office Retail Commercial Retail Commercial Mixed Use
Center Center
............................................................................................................................................................................................ ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Residential Units 400
............................................................................................................................................................................................ ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Commercial SF
............................................................................................................................................................................................ ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Grocery 40,000
............................................................................................................................................................................................ ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Retail/Restaurant 125,000 305,000 40,000
............................................................................................................................................................................................ ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Office 400,000
With the development potential for each alternative noted above, the Fiscal Impact Analysis
concluded that each scenario would be fiscally neutral or better. However, the fiscal benefits of
the two scenarios on The Green project site are quite different:
The Village @ Dublin site The Green site
Existing GP: Proposed Project: Existing Approvals: Proposed Project:
Campus Office Retail Commercial Retail Commercial Mixed Use
Center Center
Estimated Net Annual $69,000 $306,0000 $1,024,000 $279,000
Surplus to General Fund
General Fund Impacts of + $237,000 annually - $745,000 annually
Proposed Project vs.
existing entitlement
Page 3 of 4
If The Green site land use designation changes from General Commercial to Mixed Use to allow
the development of the residential and commercial project, as proposed, the net annual surplus
for the General Fund would be $745,000 less than if the 305,000 square foot commercial project
(approved in 2008) were constructed. However, the property owner has indicated that they are
unable to build the larger commercial project at this time, and therefore the $1,024,000 General
Fund gain would likely not be realized within the next five to ten years. The Mixed Use project,
however, could begin development during the FY 2014/2015 and be completed and occupied
within two to three years resulting in a near-term increase in General Fund revenue of$279,000
per year.
If the Village @ Dublin site land use designation changes from Campus Office to General
Commercial to allow the development of the retail commercial center, as proposed, the net
annual surplus for the General Fund would be $237,000 more than if an office project were
constructed (even with the approved sales tax reimbursement program in place). However, the
near-term impact to the General Fund will be an increase of$306,000 per year because there is
no proposed office developer or user that is proposing to use the site in the near term, while the
development of the retail center is expected to take place during the FY 2014/2015.
Staff is seeking direction from the City Council on whether the fiscal impacts that may result
from the implementation of The Green project are acceptable, and whether the General
Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study for The Green should continue or be
concluded. If the City Council direction is to continue the study, the Applicant will continue
processing their request for a change to the General Plan and Specific Plan land use
designations, a Planned Development Rezoning and related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan,
Tentative Map, Site Development Review, and the appropriate environmental documentation for
the Mixed Use project. If the City Council direction is to conclude the study at this time, Staff will
cease work on the project and the existing entitlements will remain in place until such time that
the Development Agreement expires in December.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Public noticing is not required to provide an update to the City Council and to seek policy
direction. A copy of this Staff Report was provided to the Applicant.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
None required.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Fiscal Impact Analysis of Regency Centers and The Green, prepared
by Keyser Marston Associates, dated August 23, 2013
Page 4 of 4
K L Y S L,R / 'i R ST0,N A S,S : 1 C,III A' IIF ,�
ADVISORS M E''LJ1 VO,'✓'I ]UVAI L': KFAL. LS INFE V) Vlvv —4.:"1N"PwhLt�J 1
MEMORANDUM
To: Linda Smith, Economic Development Director
J',,[A l 1',1', t
of ,,.Y, City of Dublin
't FFi rl li.l.f F W.I wl A ,r,.,
L..,e,y,a."'.?I L 7 L V F IS.C'l l.'•,.0
From: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
r"11.1_" Date: August 23, 2013
X31 Ii I;I f_ 7 I1:,7=
E'l.I D I..K, Ael,I[A IU', Subject: Fiscal Impact Analysis of Regency Centers and Green on Park Place
17"olt kY 11 ,I.",(A
H In accordance with your request, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) has evaluated
the recurring annual fiscal impacts on the City of Dublin (City) General Fund and Gas
Jr�i"4E15 r,,F0,/t�i Q:
_lrx4 ,"Y rIG>��9 Tax Fund to be generated by alternative land uses on the Regency Centers and Green
1`l"` " `o on Park Place sites. Changes to the land use designation and zoning of both sites are being considered and the purpose of the analysis is to provide information regarding the
potential fiscal implications of the proposed changes.
I..fl J` 111".4. I111M II:
I',GJf.a v i 4dJe
The sites are bounded by Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive, Interstate 580, and Arnold
Road. The Regency Centers site is a 14.3-acre parcel adjacent to Dublin Boulevard. The
City is considering changing the site's land use designation from Campus Office to
General Commercial Campus Office, which would permit the development of a retail
center. The Green on Park Place development site is on 27.4 acres south of the
Regency Centers site. For this site, the City is considering changing its land use
designation from General Commercial to a new Mixed Use land use designation, which
would be required for the proposed predominantly residential Green on Park Place
project.
The following chart summarizes the alternative development programs that have been
evaluated for the two sites. Alternative 2 for the Green on Park Place site is the program
that is being evaluated in accordance with CEQA. The alternative development
programs for the Regency Centers site as well as the "Alternative 1" program for the
Green on the Park Place Site have been provided by City of Dublin staff.
160 VAC;I I IC A'V1:NUf"SUITE 204 > SAN FRANC IS .0,CAI F FOR NFA 94111 A� M'Ht.NE,415 398,3050 > FAX 415 397 5065
001-002;jf
WNV'V'.KLYSL1:kMARS Lo:bNl O M 11982.005
To: Linda Smith, Economic Development Director August 23, 2013
Subject: Fiscal Impact Analysis of Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Page 2
Regency Centers Site Green on Park Place Site
Alternative 2 - Alternative 1 - Alternative 2 -
Alternative 1 - permitted under Existing EIR Program;
Existing Land Permitted under
Proposed Land Land Use
New Use Designation Use Designation Designation Proposed Land
Development Use Designation
Residential Units 400 du
Commercial SF 40,000
Grocery Retail
Restaurants 35,000 35,000
Other Retail 125,000 270,000 5,000
Office 400,000
400,000 165,000 305,000 40,000
Approach and Key Assumptions
Given the lack of detailed programs for three of the four alternatives, this fiscal analysis
is intended to provide order of magnitude estimates of the impacts of the development
alternatives upon build-out. All impacts are expressed in current, 2013 dollars. Similar to
the analysis that KMA prepared of the Dublin Crossing project, the major revenue
sources, such as property and sales taxes, have been estimated based on regional
home prices and construction costs and sales productivity levels required to support new
construction. Other revenues and all service costs have been estimated by applying per
capita budget factors derived from the City's budget forecast for FY 2013/14 to each
alternative development program.
Retail sales tax revenues are a key driver of the positive fiscal impact estimates for the
retail-focused alternatives. It is important to note that this analysis examines only rg oss
taxable sales of the retail components to be generated upon completion and
stabilization. It does not address the source of retail sales to be generated by the retail
tenants. Specifically, the analysis does not examine the degree to which the sales will be
generated by a transfer of sales from existing Dublin retailers. While transfer sales are
new sales to the specific retail tenants, they do not reflect an increase in total sales tax
revenues to the city. The analysis does reflect the terms of the "Agreement for the
Reimbursement of Sales and Use Tax Revenues between the City of Dublin and
Regency Centers." Under that Agreement, a portion of annual City sales tax revenues
generated by the Regency Center's Alternative 2 program is to be rebated to Regency
Center when annual taxable sales reach $50 million.
001-002;jf
11982.005
To: Linda Smith, Economic Development Director August 23, 2013
Subject: Fiscal Impact Analysis of Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Page 3
The analysis does not include one-time revenues or revenues that are sized and restricted
to off-set service costs or impacts, such as building permit revenues or impact fees.
Key assumptions incorporated into the analysis are as follows:
• That each alternative will be successful and well-received by the marketplace.
There may be significant differences in the degree to which the alternatives are
feasible from both a market and a financial perspective. The analysis does not
address any such differences in feasibility or any differences in the time frame in
which the concepts could be supported by the marketplace and built.
• That the retail tenants will generate a level of sales that is consistent with
standard industry hurdles to support the cost of new construction.
• That the office tenants will not generate any use or "business to business" tax
revenues.
• That police and fire costs reflect citywide per capita averages for employees and
residents, and do not include the costs of calls generated by customers in the
retail scenarios.
• That there are is no additional new public infrastructure that will need to be
maintained or any special service requirements for any of the alternatives. The
inclusion of infrastructure maintenance costs would likely have a material impact
on the magnitude of surplus estimated for each scenario.
The technical analysis is presented in the attached detail tables.
Order of Magnitude Findings
1. Annual General Fund and Gas Tax Fund Impacts Upon Build-out
The analysis indicates that for both sites, the retail alternatives would generate a
significant annual surplus to the City of Dublin'. As shown in the chart below, the retail
alternative for the Regency Center site is estimated to generate an annual surplus of
approximately $535,000 before taking into account the sales tax rebate to Regency
Centers and $306,000 net of the rebate 2. Because of its larger size (305,000 s.f), and
' The analysis evaluates only gross taxable sales, not net new taxable sales after deducting any
sales that are being transferred from existing Dublin retailers to the new retailers on the subject
sites.
2 The $306,000 surplus estimate is net of the sales tax reimbursement to Regency Center. The
unadjusted surplus (before the rebate to Regency Center)is estimated to total $535,000. KMA
estimates that the 165,000 square foot retail alternative for the Regency Centers site will
generate approximately $47.9 million of annual taxable sales upon stabilization, resulting in
001-002;jf
11982.005
To: Linda Smith, Economic Development Director August 23, 2013
Subject: Fiscal Impact Analysis of Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Page 4
the absence of a sales tax sharing agreement, the retail scenario for Green on the Park
is estimated to generate an annual surplus in excess of$1.0 million.
The office and mixed use alternatives are estimated to generate smaller annual
surpluses. The office scenario for the proposed Regency Centers site is anticipated to
generate an approximate $69,000 annual surplus and the mixed use alternative (EIR
project) for Green on Park Place is estimated to generate a $279,000 annual surplus.
Regency Centers Green on Park Place
Annual Recurring Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Fiscal Impacts 400k SF 165k SF 305k SF 400 du
Office Retail Retail 40k SF Retail
General Fund
Revenues, Before Rebate $453,000 $648,000 $1,251,000 $1,161,000
Expenditures $384,000 $113,000 $227,000 $918,000
Net Annual GF Impact, $69,000 $535,000 $1,024,000 $243,000
Before Rebate
Gas Tax Revenue L01 Lo L $36,000
Net Annual Combined City $69,000 $535,000 $1,024,000 $279,000
Surplus, Before Sales Tax
Rebate
Net Annual Combined City
Surplus, After Sales Tax $69,000 $306,000 $1,024,000 $279,000
Rebate
2. Maior Revenue Sources and Expense Categories
The most significant sources of General Fund revenues for all of the scenarios are
property taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes in lieu of motor vehicle fees. For the
office and mixed use alternatives, property taxes are the largest source of revenues. For
the retail alternatives, sales taxes alone represent over 70% of all revenues.
$479,000 of annual sales tax revenues to the City of Dublin. This projection falls slightly short of
the $50 million tax sharing threshold stipulated in the agreement with Regency Center. Under the
terms of the agreement, the City reimburses Regency approximately 50% of annual city sales tax
revenues generated at a $500,000 threshold. Since the projection is close to the threshold, to be
conservative it has been assumed that sharing will occur, and that net City sales tax revenues will
be $250,000 rather than $479,000.
001-002;jf
11982.005
To: Linda Smith, Economic Development Director August 23, 2013
Subject: Fiscal Impact Analysis of Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Page 5
The most significant expense components are police and fire department services, and
culture and leisure services. These three service categories account for over 85% of City
expenditures. Typically, public works department expenses would also be a significant
expense category but have not been included in this analysis because of a lack of
specificity regarding the public infrastructure of each alternative. If the City is obligated to
maintain any new infrastructure, then annual city service costs would exceed the
estimates contained in this memorandum, and the magnitude of estimated surpluses
would decrease.
Technical Tables
A series of technical tables are attached:
Summary Tables
Table 1 Annual Revenue and Expenditure Summary at Build-out
Table 2 Alternative Programs
Table 3 Alternatives Demographics
Table 4 Estimated Assessed Value
Table 5 Existing Demographic Data— City of Dublin
Table 6 Estimated Annual Alternatives Revenue — General and Gas Tax Funds
Table 7 Estimated Household Income
Table 8 General Fund Operating Expense Assumptions
Table 9 Estimated Annual Alternatives General Fund Expenditures
Appendix Tables
Appendix 1 Summary of General Fund Revenue Sources —City of Dublin 2013/14
Budget
Appendix 2 Summary of General Fund Budget Expenditures —City of Dublin 2013/14
Budget
Appendix 3 Commercial Development Cost/Valuation Estimates
Appendix 4a Revenue Source Assumptions— Regency Centers Alternative 1
Appendix 4b Revenue Source Assumptions — Regency Centers Alternative 2
Appendix 4c Revenue Source Assumptions —Green on Park Place Alternative 1
Appendix 4d Revenue Source Assumptions — Green on Park Place Alternative 2
001-002;jf
11982.005
Table 1
Annual Revenue and Expenditure Summary at Buildout
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin, CA August 21,2013
Regency Centers Green on Park Place
Revenue or Expenditure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Category 400 k SF Office 165 k SF Retail 305 k SF Retail 400 du/40 k SF Ret
General Fund Revenues'
Property Taxes $290,000 64.0% $117,000 27.9% $236,000 18.9% $604,000 52.0%
Sales Tax $59,000 13.0% $250,000 59.7% $910,000 72.7% $313,000 27.0%
Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF $57,000 12.6% $23,000 5.5% $47,000 3.8% $120,000 10.3%
Franchise Fees $31,000 6.8% $9,000 2.1% $18,000 1.4% $74,000 6.4%
Property Transfer Tax $8,000 1.8% $3,000 0.7% $6,000 0.5% $31,000 2.7%
Fines/ Forfeitures/Penalties $3,000 0.7% $1,000 0.2% $2,000 0.2% $6,000 0.5%
Prop. 172 Sales Tax $2,000 0.4% $14,000 3.3% $27,000 2.2% $9,000 0.8%
Licenses, Permits, and Fees $1,000 0.2% $0 0.0% $1,000 0.1% $4,000 0.3%
Business License Tax $2,000 0.4% $2,000 0.5% $4,000 0.3% $0 0.0%
$453,000 100.0% $419,000 100.0% $1,251,000 100.0% $1,161,000 100.0%
General Fund Expenditures z
Police ($165,000) 43.0% ($49,000) 43.4% ($98,000) 43.2% ($396,000) 43.1%
Fire ($116,000) 30.2% ($34,000) 30.1% ($69,000) 30.4% ($278,000) 30.3%
Culture and Leisure Services ($51,000) 13.3% ($15,000) 13.3% ($30,000) 13.2% ($122,000) 13.3%
General Government ($20,000) 5.2% ($6,000) 5.3% ($12,000) 5.3% ($47,000) 5.1%
Community Development ($12,000) 3.1% ($4,000) 3.5% ($7,000) 3.1% ($29,000) 3.2%
Transportation ($12,000) 3.1% ($3,000) 2.7% ($7,000) 3.1% ($28,000) 3.1%
Other Public Safety ($8,000) 2.1% ($2,000) 1.8% ($4,000) 1.8% ($18,000) 2.0%
($384,000) 100.0% ($113,000) 100.0% ($227,000) 100.0% ($918,000) 100.0%
Net General Fund Impacts,
Before Sales Tax Rebate to
Regency $69,000 $535,000 $1,024,000 $243,000
Net General Fund Impacts,
After Rebate to Regency $69,000 $306,000 $1,024,000 $243,000
Additional Other Revenues'
Gas Tax Fund $0 $0 $0 $36,000
Net General and Gas Tax
Fund Revenue, Before Rebate
to Regency $69,000 $535,000 $1,024,000 $279,000
Net General and Gas Tax
Fund Revenue,After Rebate
to Regency $69,000 $306,000 $1,024,000 $279,000
1 Table 6.
z Table 9.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 6
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13; 1 summ; 8/23/2013;jj
Table 2
Alternative Programs
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
Regency Centers Green on Park Place
Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 1 Alt.2
400k SF 165k SF 305k SF 400 du
Development Program Office Retail Retail 40k SF Ret
Residential Units 1
Condominiums, Wood Podium 160
Townhouses 160
Single Family Detached 80
400
Commercial Square Feet 1
Retail
Grocery 40,000
Restaurant 35,000 35,000
General 125,000 270,000 5,000
165,000 305,000 40,000
Office 400,000
Total Commercial 400,000 165,000 305,000 40,000
Site Acres 14.3 14.3 27.4 27.40
Commercial FAR 0.64 0.26 0.26 0.20
Dwelling Units per Acre 17.5
1 Project information per City staff and Green on Park Place Sponsor.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 7
Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13; 2 program; 8/23/2013;J
Table 3
Alternatives Demographics
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
Regency Centers Green on Park Place
Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 1 Alt.2
400k SF 165k SF 305k SF 400 du
Demographic Measure Office Retail Retail 40k SF Ret
Residential Population
Condominiums 3.09 perHH 1 1.7% vacant 0 0 0 486
Townhouses 3.09 per HH 1 1.7% vacant 0 0 0 486
Single Family Detached 3.09 perHH 1 1.7% vacant 0 0 0 243
0 0 0 1,215
Commercial Employment
Retail
Grocery 350 sf/empl Z 0 114 0 0
Restaurant 200 sf/empl Z 0 0 175 175
General 350 sf/empl Z 0 357 771 14
0 471 946 189
Office 250 sf/empl Z 1,600 0 0 0
1,600 471 946 189
Resident Equivalents
Residents 1.00 perresident 0 0 0 1,215
Employees 0.33 per empl 533 157 315 63
533 157 315 1,278
1 U.S. Census 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
z KMA estimate based on past experience.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 8
Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13; 3 proj demog; 8/23/2013;jj
Table 4
Estimated Assessed Value
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
Regency Centers Green on Park Place
Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 1 Alt.2
400k SF 165k SF 305k SF 400 du/40k SF
Assessed Value Office Retail Retail Retail
unit price 1
Residential
Condominiums $672,000 /du $0 $0 $0 $107,520,000
Townhouses $630,000 /du $0 $0 $0 $100,800,000
Single Family Detached $780,000 /du $0 $0 $0 $62,400,000
$676,800 /du $0 $0 $0 $270,720,000
Commercial
Retail con. costs+land Z
Grocery $320 psf $0 $12,800,000 $0 $0
Restaurant $560 psf $0 $0 $19,600,000 $19,600,000
General $350 psf LO $43,750,000 $94,500,000 $1,750,000
$0 $56,550,000 $114,100,000 $21,350,000
Office $350 psf $140,000,000 $0 $0 $0
$140,000,000 $56,550,000 $114,100,000 $21,350,000
Total Assessed Value $140,000,000 $56,550,000 $114,100,000 $292,070,000
1 Based on unit price estimated provided by Green on Park Place sponsor.
z Appendix 3.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 9
Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13; 4 AV; 8/23/2013;jj
Table 5
Existing Demographic Data-City of Dublin
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21,2013
City of
Demographic Measure Dublin
Population 1 44,208
Employment Z 20,540
Resident Equivalents 0.33 per employee 51,055
1
State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 Population Estimates for
Cities,Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change—January 1,2012
and 2013. Sacramento,California, May 2013.
Adjusted based on U.S. Census 2010 Group Quarter/Correctional Facility
population:
Correctional Facility Population 5,682
z The Nielsen Company,2012.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 10
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13; 5 extg demog; 8/23/2013;jj
Table 6
Estimated Annual Alternatives Revenue-General and Gas Tax Funds
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21,2013
Regency Centers Green on Park Place
Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 1 Alt.2
400k SF 165k SF 305k SF 400 du
Revenue Source Estimating Factor 1 Office Retail Retail 40k SF Ret
Measure
Total Assessed Value($1,0005) z $140,000 $56,550 $114,100 $292,070
Residential Assessed Value($1,0005) z $0 $0 $0 $270,720
Commercial Assessed Value($1,0005) z $140,000 $56,550 $114,100 $21,350
Single Family Households 3 0 0 0 400
Retail Employees 4 0 471 946 189
Office Employees 4 1,600 0 0 0
General Retail Square Feet 3 0 125,000 270,000 5,000
Restaurant Square Feet 3 0 0 35,000 35,000
Grocery Retail Square Feet 3 0 40,000 0 0
Office Square Feet 3 400,000 0 0 0
Total Resident Equivalents 4 533 157 315 1,278
Total Residents 4 0 0 0 1,215
General Fund
Property Taxes 20.70% share of 1% prop. tax $289,756 $117,041 $236,151 $604,492
Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF $0.41 1$1,OOOAV $57,449 $23,205 $46,821 $119,850
Property Transfer Tax
Residential $0.55 1$1,OOOAV 20% per year $0 $0 $0 $29,779
Commercial $0.55 1$1,OOOAV 10% per year $7,700 $3,110 $6,276 $1,174
$7,700 $3,110 $6,276 $30,953
Sales Tax
Spending Measures
Non-Prof. Residential Spend per household $0 $0 $0 $31,764
Non-Prof. Retail Empl.Spend per employee $0 $900 $800 $950
Non-Proj. Office Empl.Spend per employee $3,657 $0 $0 $0
Project General Retail Sales persquare foot $270 $270 $270 $270
Project Restaurant Sales persquarefoot $495 $495 $495 $495
Project Grocery Taxable Sales per square foot $342 $342 $342 $342
Taxable Sales
Non-Proj. Residential Spend 98.3% occupied 4 $0 $0 $0 $12,489,416
Non-Proj. Retail Empl. Spend $0 $423,900 $756,800 $179,550
Non-Proj.Office Empl. Spend $5,850,880 $0 $0 $0
Project General Retail Sales $0 $33,750,000 $72,900,000 $1,350,000
Project Restaurant Sales $0 $0 $17,325,000 $17,325,000
Project Grocery Retail Sales LO $13,680,000 $0 LO
$5,850,880 $47,853,900 $90,981,800 $31,343,966
Total Sales Tax 1.00% sales tax $58,509 $478,539 $909,818 $313,440
Sales Tax Net of Sharing 5 $58,509 $250,000 $909,818 $313,440
Page 11
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;6 rev;8/23/2013;J
Table 6
Estimated Annual Alternatives Revenue-General and Gas Tax Funds
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21,2013
Regency Centers Green on Park Place
Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 1 Alt.2
400k SF 165k SF 305k SF 400 du
Revenue Source Estimating Factor 1 Office Retail Retail 40k SF Ret
General Fund,continued
Business License Tax
Grocery Retail 1 store $50 perbus $0 $50 $0 $0
Restaurant Retail 5,000 sf per bus $50 perbus $0 $0 $350 $350
General Retail 3,500 sf per bus $50 perbus $0 $1,786 $3,857 $71
Office 10,000 sf per bus $50 perbus L19202 $0 L0 L0
$2,000 $1,836 $4,207 $421
Prop. 172 Sales Tax
Taxable Sales see sales tax calculations,above $5,850,880 $47,853,900 $90,981,800 $31,343,966
Tax 0.30 /$1,000 $1,755 $14,356 $27,295 $9,403
Franchise Fees $57.66 per res eq $30,733 $9,053 $18,163 $73,689
Licenses,Permits,and Fees $2.77 per res eq $1,477 $435 $873 $3,542
Fines/Forfeitures/Penalties $5.03 per res eq $2,682 $790 $1,585 $6,431
Total General Fund Revenue $452,060 $419,826 $1,251,188 $1,162,222
Gas Tax Fund $29.46 per resident $0 $0 $0 $35,799
Total General and Gas Tax Fund $452,060 $419,826 $1,251,188 $1,198,021
1 See Appendicies 4a,4b,4c,and 4d. 3 See Table 2.
2 See Table 4. 4 See Table 3.
5 The City of Dublin and Regency Centers have entered into an Agreement for Reimbursement of Sales and Use Tax Revenue. Under the
agreement,if taxable sales exceed$50 M (annual City sales tax exceeds$500,000)and are not attributable to businesses relocated from
elsewhere in Dublin, Pleasanton,or Livermore,annual city sales taxes will be shared according to a set schedule approximating 50%/50%
sharing.Total cumulative sales tax shared is not to exceed$3.15 M over 10 years. KMA estimates that annual taxable sales will be
slightly less than the$50 million threshold under Alternative 2,generating approximately$479,000 of annual sales tax revenues to the
City. Because this amount is so close to the sharing threshold, in order to provide a conservative projection, it has been assumed that
sharing will tax place,and that net City sales tax revenues will be$250,000.
Page 12
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;6 rev;8/23/2013;jj
Table 7
Estimated Household Income
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
Housing Expenditure Factor
Unit Value 1 $676,800
Mortgage Term Z 30 years
Interest Rate Z 5.5% /year
Down Payment Z 20% down
Annual Housing Payment $36,900 /year
Housing Expenditure %of Income Z 25% income
Annual Household Income $147,600
1 Table 4.
z Based on typical mortgage terms and housing expenditures in the
Bay Area with additional interest margin to allow for growth in
interest rates above current rates,which are at historically low levels.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 13
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 137 HH inc; 8/23/2013;jj
Table 8
General Fund Operating Expense Assumptions
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
General Government $7,554,560 net expenses in FY 2013/14 1
25% percent variable costs Z
51,055 resident equivalents 3
$36.99 average cost per resident equivalent
Police $15,816,610 net expenses in FY 2013/14 1
51,055 resident equivalents 3
$309.80 average cost per resident equivalent
Fire $11,107,860 net expenses in FY 2013/14 1
51,055 resident equivalents 3
$217.57 average cost per resident equivalent
Other Public Safety $718,770 net expenses in FY 2013/14 1
51,055 resident equivalents 3
$14.08 average cost per resident equivalent
Transportation $2,252,060 net expenses in FY 2013/14 1
50% percent variable costs Z
51,055 resident equivalents 3
$22.06 average cost per resident equivalent
Health and Welfare This department is operated on a cost recovery basis and generates
no net expenditures.
Culture and Leisure Services $6,478,070 net expenses in FY 2013/14 1
75% percent variable costs Z
51,055 resident equivalents 3
$95.16 average cost per resident equivalent
Community Development $2,316,220 net expenses in FY 2013/14 1
50% percent variable costs Z
51,055 resident equivalents 3
$22.68 average cost per resident equivalent
1 See Appendix 2.
z A portion of these General Fund expense categories is fixed,and does not vary regardless of the amount of development. The
estimated percent of variable costs is based on the experiences of other cities.
3 See Table 5.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 14
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13; 8 exp assumptns; 8/23/2013;jj
Table 9
Estimated Annual General Fund Expenditures
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
Regency Centers Green on Park Place
Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 1 Alt.2
400k SF 165k SF 305k SF 400 du
Expenditure Office Retail Retail 40k SF Ret
resident equivalents 1 533 157 315 1,278
Estimating Factor Z
General Government $36.99 per reseq $19,717 $5,808 $11,653 $47,276
Police $309.80 per reseq $165,122 $48,638 $97,586 $395,921
Fire $217.57 per reseq $115,964 $34,158 $68,534 $278,052
Other Public Safety $14.08 per res eq $7,504 $2,210 $4,435 $17,992
Transportation $22.06 per reseq $11,756 $3,463 $6,947 $28,187
Culture and Leisure Services $95.16 per reseq $50,722 $14,941 $29,977 $121,619
Community Development $22.68 per reseq $12,090 $3,561 $7,145 $28,990
Total General Fund Expenditures $382,875 $112,779 $226,277 $918,038
1 See Table 3.
z See Table 8.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 15
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13; 9 exp; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 1
Summary of General Fund Revenue Sources'
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21,2013
Forecast
FY 2013-2014
Revenue Category Budget Basis of KMA Projections
Included in the Analysis
Taxes
Current Property Taxes estimated development value,City sh.of 1%tax
Secured $18,203,730
Unsecured $1,164,000
Supplemental $450,000
$19,817,730
Prior Property Taxes
Secured $280,000
Unsecured $5,000
$285,000
In Lieu Property Tax $3,667,000 MVLF share from SOC
Property Tax Penalties $118,800
Property Transfer Tax $451,500 est.devel.value and turnover rate,City tax rate
Transient Occupancy Tax(Hotel) $875,000 est. project room nights and rates,City tax rate
Sales Tax est. project sales,empl.and resid.spending
Sales and Use Tax $11,475,000
In Lieu Sales Tax $3,825,000
$15,300,000
Franchise Taxes resident equivalents
Electric—Franchise Tax $463,500
Gas—Franchise Tax $105,300
Garbage—Franchise Tax $1,700,000
Cable—Franchise Tax $675,000
$2,943,800
Intergovernmental Revenues
Property Tax Relief(HOPTR) $183,620 included in the property taxes
$183,620
Licenses,Permits, Franchises
Business Licenses $139,000 City business license schedule
Business License Penalties $2,500 (originally under Fines, Forfeitures,and Penalties)
$141,500
Fines,Forfeitures,and Penalties resident equivalents
Other Court Fines $60,000
Parking Citations $52,910
$256,910
Total Revenue Included $44,040,860
Deducted from Service Costs
Licenses,Permits, Franchises
Police Licenses $19,380 deduct from Police Services
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 16
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-1 budget rev;8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 1
Summary of General Fund Revenue Sources'
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21,2013
Forecast
FY 2013-2014
Revenue Category Budget Basis of KMA Projections
Animal Licenses $5,600 deduct from Animal Control
Fire Permits $52,980 deduct from Fire Services
Planning Permits $52,740 deduct from Community Development Department
Building Permits $2,215,280 deduct from Community Development Department
Construction and Demo Permits $56,400 deduct from Community Development Department
Newspaper Rack Permits $3,240 deduct from Community Development Department
Encroachment/Transportation Permits $49,120 deduct from Engineering
Grading $3,280 deduct from Engineering
$2,458,020
Charges for Services
Police Charges for Services $60,730 deduct from Police Services
Fire Charges for Services $126,310 deduct from Fire Services
Waste Management Administration Fee $670,000 deduct from Waste Management
Sale of Documents $3,700 deduct from Administrative Services
Recreation&Community Services $1,727,160 deduct from Parks and Community Services Programs
Heritage&Cultural Arts $276,440 deduct from Heritage and Cultural Arts Programs
Local Share Permit Surcharge—Green Building $720 deduct from Community Development Department
Zoning/Planning $852,550 deduct from Community Development Department
Plan Checking—Building $2,600 deduct from Community Development Department
PlanChecking—Engineering $1,123,020 deduct from Engineering
Local Share Permit Surcharges—Zone 7/SMIP $10,900 deduct from Community Development Department
$4,854,130
Use of Money&Property
Field&Court Rentals $190,690 deduct from Parks and Community Services Programs
Facility Rentals $275,260 deduct from Parks and Community Services Programs
$465,950
Total Deducted from Service Costs $7,778,100
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 17
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-1 budget rev;8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 1
Summary of General Fund Revenue Sources'
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21,2013
Forecast
FY 2013-2014
Revenue Category Budget Basis of KMA Projections
Excluded from the Analysis
Charges for Services
Building Use Insurance $16,000
Santa Rita Services $820,000
$836,000
Use of Money&Property independent of project
Interest $652,160
Leased Property $64,800
$716,960
Other Revenues
Reimbursement,General $24,570
Reimbursement, Damage $19,370
Community Benefit Payments $1,488,050
Contributions/Donations/Sponsorships $67,650
Miscellaneous Revenue $53,080
$1,652,720
Total Excluded $3,205,680
TOTAL—GENERAL FUND $55,024,640
For funding City departmental services
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 18
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-1 budget rev;8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 2
Summary of General Fund Budget Expenditures 1
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
Forecast
FY 2013-2014
Expenditure Category Budget
General Government
City Council $382,900
City Manager/City Clerk $1,372,890
Elections $3,120
Central Services/ Human Services $511,230
Insurance $1,018,660
Legal Services $715,930
Administrative Services $2,228,520
(Less) Sale of Documents ($3,700)
$2,224,820
Building Management $853,130
Non-Departmental $471,880
Total General Government $7,558,260
Net General Government $7,554,560
Public Safety
Police Services $15,896,720
(Less) Police Licenses ($19,380)
(Less) Police Charges for Services ($60,730)
($80,110)
$15,816,610
Fire Services $11,287,150
(Less) Fire Permits ($52,980)
(Less) Fire Charges for Services ($126,310)
($179,290)
$11,107,860
Disaster Preparedness $171,950
Crossing Guards $111,890
Animal Control $416,410
(Less)Animal Licenses ($5,600)
$410,810
Traffic Signals and Street Lighting $24,120
Total Public Safety $27,908,240
Net Public Safety $27,643,240
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 19
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-2 budget exp; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 2
Summary of General Fund Budget Expenditures 1
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
Forecast
FY 2013-2014
Expenditure Category Budget
Transportation
Public Works Administration $958,870
Street Maintenance $20,770
Street Sweeping $162,470
Street Landscape Maintenance $980,130
Street Tree Maintenance $129,820
Total Transportation $2,252,060
Net Transportation $2,252,060
Health and Welfare
Waste Management $159,840
(Less)Waste Management Administration Fee ($670,000)
($510,160)
Environmental Programs $233,940
Social Services $196,480
Housing Programs $210
Total Health and Welfare $590,470
Net Health and Welfare ($79,530)
Culture and Leisure Services
Community Cable Television $87,150
Library Services $579,420
Park Maintenance $2,775,830
Heritage and Cultural Arts Programs $1,003,310
(Less) Heritage &Cultural Arts ($276,440)
$726,870
Parks and Community Services Programs $4,138,060
(Less) Recreation &Community Services ($1,727,160)
(Less) Field &Court Rentals ($190,690)
(Less) Facility Rentals ($275,260)
($2,193,110)
$1,944,950
Park and Facility Development $363,850
Total Culture and Leisure Services $8,947,620
Net Culture and Leisure Services $6,478,070
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 20
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-2 budget exp; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 2
Summary of General Fund Budget Expenditures 1
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
Forecast
FY 2013-2014
Expenditure Category Budget
Community Development
Community Development Department $4,150,790
(Less) Planning Permits ($52,740)
(Less) Building Permits ($2,215,280)
(Less) Construction and Demo Permits ($56,400)
(Less) Newspaper Rack Permits ($3,240)
(Less) Local Share Permit Surcharge—Green Building ($720)
(Less)Zoning/ Planning ($852,550)
(Less) Plan Checking—Building ($2,600)
(Less) Local Share Permit Surcharges—Zone 7/SMIP ($10,900)
($3,194,430)
$956,360
Engineering $1,892,540
(Less) Encroachment/Transportation Permits ($49,120)
(Less) Grading ($3,280)
(Less) Plan Checking—Engineering ($1,123,020)
($1,175,420)
$717,120
Economic Development and Public Information $642,740
Total Community Development $6,686,070
Net Community Development $2,316,220
Total Operating Expenditures $53,942,720
Appropriations to Reserves $58,289
Total General Fund Expenditures $54,001,009
Expenditures Net of Off-Setting Revenues $46,222,909
Cost recovery items(negative amounts)are from revenue items listed on Table A-1.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 21
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-2 budget exp; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 3
Commercial Construction Cost/Assessed Valuation Estimates
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21,2013
General
Commercial Cost Element Grocery Retail Office Restaurant
Construction Costs i $170.00 $200.00 $300.00 $405.00
Land Cost
Cost per Square Foot of Land 2 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00
Floor Area Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.64 0.20
Land Cost per Building Square Foot $150.00 $150.00 $46.72 $150.00
Est.Assessed Valuation, Per GBA $320.00 $350.00 $350.00 $560.00
1 Marshall &Swift Valuation Service.
z KMA estimate.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 22
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-3 M&S cost; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 4a
Revenue Source Assumptions-Regency Centers Alternative 1
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
General Fund
Property Tax 1% property tax assessment
20.70% City share of property tax allocation post-ERAF 1
Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF $2,278,846 property tax based revenues 2004-05 2,3
$5,553,452,954 2004-05 Dublin gross AV 2,3
$0.41 per$1,000 in AV growth
Property Transfer Tax $0.55/$1,000 AV City transfer tax rate 4
20.00% estimated annual ownership residential turnover 5
10.00% estimated annual commercial turnover 5
Sales Tax 1.00% of taxable sales
Resident Retail Spending $147,600 estimated household income 6
26.9% income spent on taxable sales in Bay Area 7
80.0% Dublin caputure rate 8
0.0% Dublin spending within the project 5
$31,764 annual other Dublin spending per owner household
Retail Employee Retail Spending $25.00 potential weekly spending per employee 5
50 weeks at work per year 5
$1,250 annual spending per employee
80% Dublin capture 5
0% employee Dublin spending within the project 5
$1,000 annual other Dublin spending per employee
Office Employee Retail Spending $91.42 potential weekly spending per employee 9
50 weeks at work per year 5
$4,571 annual spending per employee
80% Dublin capture 5
0% employee Dublin spending within the project 5
$3,657 annual other Dublin spending per employee
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 23
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\1 1982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-4a rev assumptns-regency 1; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 4a
Revenue Source Assumptions-Regency Centers Alternative 1
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
General Fund,continued
Sales Tax, continued
General Retail $375 total sales PSF 5
80% taxable sales 5
10% vacany rate 5
$270 total taxable general retail sales PSF
Grocery Retail $854 total sales PSF 10
40% percent taxable 5
$342 total taxable grocery sales PSF
Restaurant $550 total sales PSF 5
100% taxable sales 5
10% vacany rate 5
$495 total taxable sales, restaurant space PSF
Business License Tax $50 per business 4
1 grocery store
3,500 sf per business for general retail 5
10,000 sf per business for office building 5
Prop. 172 Sales Tax $0.005 statewide 1/2 cent sales tax 11
6% average allocation to cities 11
$0.300 Dublin revenue per$1,000 spent
Franchise Fees $2,943,800 citywide revenues in FY 2013/14 12
51,055 resident equivalents 13
$57.66 per resident equivalent
Licenses, Permits, and Fees $141,500 citywide revenues in FY 2013/14 12
51,055 resident equivalents 13
$2.77 per resident equivalent
Fines/ Forfeitures/ Penalties $256,910 citywide revenues in FY 2013/14 12
51,055 resident equivalents 13
$5.03 per resident equivalent
Other Revenue
Gas Tax Fund $1,302,550 revenues in FY 2013/14 14
44,208 residents 13
$29.46 per resident
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 24
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\1 1982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-4a rev assumptns-regency 1; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 4a
Revenue Source Assumptions-Regency Centers Alternative 1
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
Notes:
1 Alameda County Auditor-Controller Agency Tax Analysis Property Reports,51322AABB Calculation of Revenue
Percentages in Tax Rate Areas (County website).
z Per SB 1096,growth of property tax in lieu of VLF is proportional to growth in AV since 2004/05. Before 2004/05,VLF
was distributed in proportion to population.
3 2004/05 VLF distribution per the California State Controller's Office.
4 Per Dublin Municipal Code.
s KMA assumption.
e See Table 7.
State Board of Equalization Taxable Sales in California Report by Type of Business for Cities and Counties,2011; US
Census,American Community Survey,2007-2011 5-Year Estimates.
$ Estimate based on CA Board of Equalization taxable sales and household spending potential.
9 Based on employee food and goods and services spending in the vicinity of the office,as reported in the ICSC report,
"Office-Worker Retail Spending in a Digital Age" (2012),for suburban workers.
10 Supermarkets Industry Statistical Data-by U.S. Business Reporter FY 2011. Data used are for similar stores to those
anticipated at the site.
11 Per California City Finance website-The Proposition 172 1/2 Cent Sales Tax: Background for League of California
Cities 2005 Annual Conference Resolution#7.
lz See Appendix 1.
13 See Table 5.
14 Per City of Dublin 2013-2014 Operating Budget.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 25
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\1 1982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-4a rev assumptns-regency 1; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 4b
Revenue Source Assumptions-Regency Centers Alternative 2
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
General Fund
Property Tax 1% property tax assessment
20.70% City share of property tax allocation post-ERAF 1
Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF $2,278,846 property tax based revenues 2004-05 2,3
$5,553,452,954 2004-05 Dublin gross AV 2,3
$0.41 per$1,000 in AV growth
Property Transfer Tax $0.55/$1,000 AV City transfer tax rate 4
20.00% estimated annual ownership residential turnover 5
5.00% estimated annual commercial turnover 5
City Sales Tax 1.00% of taxable sales less rebate to Regency Centers6
Resident Retail Spending $147,600 estimated household income 7
26.9% income spent on taxable sales in Bay Area 8
80.0% Dublin caputure rate 9
5.0% Dublin spending within the project 5
$30,175 annual other Dublin spending per owner household
Retail Employee Retail Spending $25.00 potential weekly spending per employee 5
50 weeks at work per year 5
$1,250 annual spending per employee
80% Dublin capture 5
10% employee Dublin spending within the project 5
$900 annual other Dublin spending per employee
Office Employee Retail Spending $91.42 potential weekly spending per employee i0
50 weeks at work per year 5
$4,571 annual spending per employee
80% Dublin capture 5
10% employee Dublin spending within the project 5
$3,291 annual other Dublin spending per employee
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 26
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-4b rev assumptns-regency 2; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 4b
Revenue Source Assumptions-Regency Centers Alternative 2
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
General Fund,continued
Sales Tax, continued
General Retail $375 total sales PSF 5
80% taxable sales 5
10% vacany rate 5
$270 total taxable general retail sales PSF
Restaurant Retail $550 total sales PSF 5
100% taxable sales 5
10% vacany rate 5
$495 total taxable general retail sales PSF
Grocery Retail $854 total sales PSF 11
40% percent taxable 5
$342 total taxable grocery sales PSF
Business License Tax $50 per business 4
1 grocery store
3,500 sf per business for general retail 5
10,000 sf per business for office building 5
Prop. 172 Sales Tax $0.005 statewide 1/2 cent sales tax 12
6% average allocation to cities 12
$0.300 Dublin revenue per$1,000 spent
Franchise Fees $2,943,800 citywide revenues in FY 2013/14 13
51,055 resident equivalents 14
$57.66 per resident equivalent
Licenses, Permits, and Fees $141,500 citywide revenues in FY 2013/14 13
51,055 resident equivalents 14
$2.77 per resident equivalent
Fines/ Forfeitures/ Penalties $256,910 citywide revenues in FY 2013/14 13
51,055 resident equivalents 14
$5.03 per resident equivalent
Other Revenue
Gas Tax Fund $1,302,550 revenues in FY 2013/14 15
44,208 residents 14
$29.46 per resident
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 27
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-4b rev assumptns-regency 2; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 4b
Revenue Source Assumptions-Regency Centers Alternative 2
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
Notes:
1 Alameda County Auditor-Controller Agency Tax Analysis Property Reports,51322AABB Calculation of Revenue
Percentages in Tax Rate Areas (County website).
z Per SB 1096,growth of property tax in lieu of VLF is proportional to growth in AV since 2004/05. Before 2004/05,VLF
was distributed in proportion to population.
3 2004/05 VLF distribution per the California State Controller's Office.
4 Per Dublin Municipal Code.
s KMA assumption.
e The City of Dublin and Regency Centers have entered into an Agreement for Reimbursement of Sales and Use Tax
Revenue. Under the agreement, if taxable sales exceed$50 M (annual City sales tax exceeds$500,000 and are not
attributable to businesses relocated from elsewhere in Dublin, Pleasanton,or Livermore),a portion of annual city sales
taxes will be rebated according to a set schedule approximating 50%/50%sharing.Total cumulative sales tax rebated
cannot exceed$3.15 M over 10 years. KMA estimates that annual taxable sales will be slightly less than the$50 million
threshold under Alternative 2,generating approximately$479,000 of annual sales tax revenues to the City.Since the
projection is close to the threshold,to be conservative it has been assumed that sharing will occur,and that net City sales
tax revenues will be$250,000 rather than $479,000.
See Table 7.
$ State Board of Equalization Taxable Sales in California Report by Type of Business for Cities and Counties,2011; US
Census,American Community Survey,2007-2011 5-Year Estimates.
9 Estimate based on CA Board of Equalization taxable sales and household spending potential.
10 Based on employee food and goods and services spending in the vicinity of the office,as reported in the ICSC report,
"Office-Worker Retail Spending in a Digital Age" (2012),for suburban workers.
11 Supermarkets Industry Statistical Data-by U.S. Business Reporter FY 2011. Data used are for similar stores to those
anticipated at the site.
1z Per California City Finance website-The Proposition 172 1/2 Cent Sales Tax: Background for League of California
Cities 2005 Annual Conference Resolution#7.
13 See Appendix 1.
14 See Table 5.
11 Per City of Dublin 2013-2014 Operating Budget.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 28
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-4b rev assumptns-regency 2; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 4c
Revenue Source Assumptions
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
General Fund
Property Tax 1% property tax assessment
20.70% City share of property tax allocation post-ERAF 1
Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF $2,278,846 property tax based revenues 2004-05 2,3
$5,553,452,954 2004-05 Dublin gross AV 2,3
$0.41 per$1,000 in AV growth
Property Transfer Tax $0.55/$1,000 AV City transfer tax rate 4
20.00% estimated annual ownership residential turnover 5
5.00% estimated annual commercial turnover 5
Sales Tax 1.000% of taxable sales
Resident Retail Spending $147,600 estimated household income 6
26.9% income spent on taxable sales in Bay Area 7
80.0% Dublin caputure rate 8
10.0% Dublin spending within the project 5
$28,587 annual other Dublin spending per owner household
Retail Employee Retail Spending $25.00 potential weekly spending per employee 5
50 weeks at work per year 5
$1,250 annual spending per employee
80% Dublin capture 5
20% employee Dublin spending within the project 5
$800 annual other Dublin spending per employee
Office Employee Retail Spending $91.42 potential weekly spending per employee 9
50 weeks at work per year 5
$4,571 annual spending per employee
80% Dublin capture 5
20% employee Dublin spending within the project 5
$2,925 annual other Dublin spending per employee
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 29
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-4c rev assumptns-GOPP 1; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 4c
Revenue Source Assumptions
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
General Fund,continued
Sales Tax, continued
General Retail $375 total sales PSF 5
80% taxable sales 5
10% vacany rate 5
$270 total taxable general retail sales PSF
Restaurant Retail $550 total sales PSF 5
100% taxable sales 5
10% vacany rate 5
$495 total taxable general retail sales PSF
Grocery Retail $854 total sales PSF 10
40% percent taxable 5
$342 total taxable grocery sales PSF
Business License Tax $50 per business 4
1 grocery store
3,500 sf per business for general retail 5
10,000 sf per business for office building 5
Prop. 172 Sales Tax $0.005 statewide 1/2 cent sales tax 11
6% average allocation to cities 11
$0.300 Dublin revenue per$1,000 spent
Franchise Fees $2,943,800 citywide revenues in FY 2013/14 12
51,055 resident equivalents 13
$57.66 per resident equivalent
Licenses, Permits, and Fees $141,500 citywide revenues in FY 2013/14 12
51,055 resident equivalents 13
$2.77 per resident equivalent
Fines/ Forfeitures/ Penalties $256,910 citywide revenues in FY 2013/14 12
51,055 resident equivalents 13
$5.03 per resident equivalent
Other Revenue
Gas Tax Fund $1,302,550 revenues in FY 2013/14 14
44,208 residents 13
$29.46 per resident
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 30
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-4c rev assumptns-GOPP 1; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 4c
Revenue Source Assumptions
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
Notes:
1 Alameda County Auditor-Controller Agency Tax Analysis Property Reports,51322AABB Calculation of Revenue
Percentages in Tax Rate Areas (County website).
z Per SB 1096,growth of property tax in lieu of VLF is proportional to growth in AV since 2004/05. Before 2004/05,VLF
was distributed in proportion to population.
3 2004/05 VLF distribution per the California State Controller's Office.
4 Per Dublin Municipal Code.
s KMA assumption.
e See Table 7.
State Board of Equalization Taxable Sales in California Report by Type of Business for Cities and Counties,2011; US
Census,American Community Survey,2007-2011 5-Year Estimates.
$ Estimate based on CA Board of Equalization taxable sales and household spending potential.
9 Based on employee food and goods and services spending in the vicinity of the office,as reported in the ICSC report,
"Office-Worker Retail Spending in a Digital Age" (2012),for suburban workers.
10 Supermarkets Industry Statistical Data-by U.S. Business Reporter FY 2011. Data used are for similar stores to those
anticipated at the site.
11 Per California City Finance website-The Proposition 172 1/2 Cent Sales Tax: Background for League of California
Cities 2005 Annual Conference Resolution#7.
lz See Appendix 1.
13 See Table 5.
14 Per City of Dublin 2013-2014 Operating Budget.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 31
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-4c rev assumptns-GOPP 1; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 4d
Revenue Source Assumptions-Green on Park Place Alternative 2
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
General Fund
Property Tax 1% property tax assessment
20.70% City share of property tax allocation post-ERAF 1
Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF $2,278,846 property tax based revenues 2004-05 2,3
$5,553,452,954 2004-05 Dublin gross AV 2,3
$0.41 per$1,000 in AV growth
Property Transfer Tax $0.55/$1,000 AV City transfer tax rate 4
20.00% estimated annual ownership residential turnover 5
5.00% estimated annual commercial turnover 5
Sales Tax 1.000% of taxable sales
Resident Retail Spending $147,600 estimated household income 6
26.9% income spent on taxable sales in Bay Area 7
80.0% Dublin caputure rate 8
2.0% Dublin spending within the project 5
$31,128 annual other Dublin spending per owner household
Retail Employee Retail Spending $25.00 potential weekly spending per employee 5
50 weeks at work per year 5
$1,250 annual spending per employee
80% Dublin capture 5
5% employee Dublin spending within the project 5
$950 annual other Dublin spending per employee
Office Employee Retail Spending $91.42 potential weekly spending per employee 9
50 weeks at work per year 5
$4,571 annual spending per employee
80% Dublin capture 5
5% employee Dublin spending within the project 5
$3,474 annual other Dublin spending per employee
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 32
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-4d rev assumptns-GOPP 2; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 4d
Revenue Source Assumptions-Green on Park Place Alternative 2
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
General Fund,continued
Sales Tax, continued
General Retail $375 total sales PSF 5
80% taxable sales 5
10% vacany rate 5
$270 total taxable general retail sales PSF
Restaurant Retail $550 total sales PSF 5
100% taxable sales 5
10% vacany rate 5
$495 total taxable general retail sales PSF
Grocery Retail $854 total sales PSF 10
40% percent taxable 5
$342 total taxable grocery sales PSF
Business License Tax $50 per business 4
1 grocery store
3,500 sf per business for general retail 5
10,000 sf per business for office building 5
Prop. 172 Sales Tax $0.005 statewide 1/2 cent sales tax 11
6% average allocation to cities 11
$0.300 Dublin revenue per$1,000 spent
Franchise Fees $2,943,800 citywide revenues in FY 2013/14 12
51,055 resident equivalents 13
$57.66 per resident equivalent
Licenses, Permits, and Fees $141,500 citywide revenues in FY 2013/14 12
51,055 resident equivalents 13
$2.77 per resident equivalent
Fines/ Forfeitures/ Penalties $256,910 citywide revenues in FY 2013/14 12
51,055 resident equivalents 13
$5.03 per resident equivalent
Other Revenue
Gas Tax Fund $1,302,550 revenues in FY 2013/14 14
44,208 residents 13
$29.46 per resident
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 33
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-4d rev assumptns-GOPP 2; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 4d
Revenue Source Assumptions-Green on Park Place Alternative 2
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
Notes:
1 Alameda County Auditor-Controller Agency Tax Analysis Property Reports,51322AABB Calculation of Revenue
Percentages in Tax Rate Areas (County website).
z Per SB 1096,growth of property tax in lieu of VLF is proportional to growth in AV since 2004/05. Before 2004/05,VLF
was distributed in proportion to population.
3 2004/05 VLF distribution per the California State Controller's Office.
4 Per Dublin Municipal Code.
s KMA assumption.
e See Table 7.
State Board of Equalization Taxable Sales in California Report by Type of Business for Cities and Counties,2011; US
Census,American Community Survey,2007-2011 5-Year Estimates.
$ Estimate based on CA Board of Equalization taxable sales and household spending potential.
9 Based on employee food and goods and services spending in the vicinity of the office,as reported in the ICSC report,
"Office-Worker Retail Spending in a Digital Age" (2012),for suburban workers.
10 Supermarkets Industry Statistical Data-by U.S. Business Reporter FY 2011. Data used are for similar stores to those
anticipated at the site.
11 Per California City Finance website-The Proposition 172 1/2 Cent Sales Tax: Background for League of California
Cities 2005 Annual Conference Resolution#7.
lz See Appendix 1.
13 See Table 5.
14 Per City of Dublin 2013-2014 Operating Budget.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 34
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-4d rev assumptns-GOPP 2; 8/23/2013;jj
RESOLUTION NO. XX-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
************************
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR
THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT
(PLPA-2013-00013)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place LLC, has submitted a
Planning Application to construct approximately 37,000 square feet of retail and restaurant
buildings with associated outdoor seating areas and six future residential neighborhoods with
372 units in multiple buildings on a 27.5 acre site. The proposal includes the approval of
General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Rezoning properties to
a new Planned Development Zoning District and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan, Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings only), Vesting Tentative
Map, Development Agreement, and certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report, among other related actions. These planning and implementing actions are collectively
known as "The Green Mixed Use Project" or the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, approval of the project as proposed requires that certain amendments be
made to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan so that the two documents are
consistent with the proposed mix of commercial and residential uses on the site; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation for
the project site is proposed to be amended from "General Commercial" to "Mixed Use" to enable
the construction of retail/restaurant uses in addition to Medium-High Density Residential uses
coordinated in a master-planned development on one project site. In addition, other provisions
of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are proposed to be amended to ensure
consistency with the proposed land use designation for this 27.5 acres; 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 Draft Supplement Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)
dated May 2014 for the proposed Project which reflected the City's independent judgment and
analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR was circulated from May 7, 2014 to June 23, 2014 (45 days)
for public comment; and
WHEREAS, comments received on the Draft SEIR were reviewed and responded to, and
the Final EIR (that contains the Response to Comments) dated August 2014 was prepared; and
WHEREAS, consistent with section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the City
obtained a contact list of local Native American tribes from the Native American Heritage
Commission and notified the tribes on the contact list of the opportunity to consult with the City
on the proposed General Plan Amendment. None of the contacted tribes requested a
1
consultation within the 90-day statutory consultation period and no further action is required
under section 65352.3; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated August 26, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project, including the General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendments, Rezoning properties to a new Planned Development Zoning District
and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review
(Commercial Buildings only), Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement, and certification
of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-48
(incorporated herein by reference) recommending that the City Council approve the General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments for the Project; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated April 21, 2015 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendments for the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the proposed
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments on April 21, 2015, at which time all
interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, on April 21, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution -15 certifying The
Green Mixed Use Project Supplemental EIR and adopting CEQA mitigation findings and a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the certified SEIR and all above-referenced
reports, recommendations, and testimony prior to taking action on The Green Mixed Use Project
and considered the previous CEQA approvals for the other three projects ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council used their independent judgment and considered the Staff
Report and all reports, recommendations, and testimony referenced above prior to approving
the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds that the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to The Green Mixed Use Project are in the
public interest and that the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as so amended,
will remain internally consistent, and that the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as amended, is
consistent with the General Plan, as amended.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following
amendments to the General Plan for The Green Mixed Use Project-
2
Figure 1-1 (Land Use exhibit) shall be amended to reflect the change in land use designation
from General Commercial to Mixed Use for The Green Mixed Use project site.
Table 2.2 (Land Use Development Potential: Eastern Extended Planning Area) shall be
amended as shown below (table footnotes not included):
TABLE 2.2: Land Use Development Potential: Eastern Extended Planning Area
Classification Acres Intensity" Units Factor Yield
RESIDENTIAL Du's/acre Du's Persons/du Population
High Density 56.14 25.1+ 1,409+ 2.7 3,804+
Medium-High Density 137.81 14.1-25.0 1,943-3,445 2.7 5,246-9,302
Medium-High Density and 0 14.1-25.0 0 2.7 0
Retail/Office
Medium Density 390.11 6.1-14.0 2,380-5,462 2.7 6,426-14,747
Single Family 725 0.9-6.0 652-4,350 2.7 1,760-11,745
Estate Residential 30.5 0.01-0.8 0-24 2.7 0-65
Rural Residential/Agriculture 340.2 0.01 3 2.7 8
TOTAL 1679.76 6,387-14,693 17,244-39,671+
Floor Square Feet Square
COMMERCIAL Acres Area (millions) Feet/ Jobs
Ratio Employee
(Gross)
General Commercial 271.6 .20-.60 2.37-7.10 510 4,647-13,922
General Commercial/Campus Office 95.22 .20-.80 .83-3.32 385 2,155-7,325
Mixed Use 38.8 .30-1.00 .51-1.70 490 1,041-3,469
Mixed Use 2/Campus Office 22.9 .45 max .45 260 1,731
Neighborhood Commercial 21.29 .25-.60 .23-.56 490 470-1,143
Campus Office 195.58 .25-.80 2.13-6.82 260 8,192-26,214
Industrial Park 56.4 .35 max .86 590 1,458
Industrial Park/Campus Office 0 .25-.35 0 425 0
TOTAL: 701.79 7.38-20.81 19,694-55,262
PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC/OPEN FAR Square Feet Square
SPACE Acres (Gross) (millions) Feet/ Jobs
employee
Public/Semi-Public 94.1 .50 max 2.05 590 3475
Semi-Public 3.2 .50 max .07 590 119
Acres Number
Parks/Public Recreation 196.3
Regional Parks 1.2 1
Open Space 699.56
FAR Square Feet Square
Schools Acres (Gross) (millions) Feet/ Jobs
employee
Elementary School 48.7 .50 max 1.06 590 1797
Middle School 27.8 .50 max .61 590 1034
High School 0
TOTAL: 1070.86 3.79 6425
Dwelling Square
Acres Units Population Feet Jobs
(millions)
GRAND TOTAL: 3,45.41 6,387- 17,244- 11.17-24.6 26,119-61,687
14,693 39,671+
3
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby finds that the amendments to
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are consistent with the Dublin General Plan as amended
because the amendments conform to match the amendments made to the General Plan land
use designations for each project site.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following
amendments to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for The Green Mixed Use Project:
Table 4.1 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary) shall be amended as shown below
(table footnotes not included):
TABLE 4.1
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE SUMMARY
(Amended Per Resolution Nos. 66-03, 47-04, 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 210-08, 176-09, 76-10, 55-12, 92-12, 210-12, 198-13,
19-14, 159-14, and xx-14)
Land Use Description LAND AREA DENSITY YIELD
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
General Commercial 329.3 acres .25-.35 FAR 3.817 MSF
General Commercial/Campus Office 87.02 acres .28 FAR 1.054 MSF
Industrial Park* 61.3 acres .25-.28 FAR .747 MSF
Neighborhood Commercial 57.89 acres .30-.35 FAR .812 MSF
Mixed Use 32.1 acres .30-1.0 FAR .045 MSF
Mixed Use 2/Campus Office***** 25.33 acres .45 FAR .497 MSF
Campus Office 153.01 acres .35-.75 FAR 2.986 MSF
Subtotal 745.95 acres 9.958 MSF
RESIDENTIAL
High Density 58.74 acres 35 du/ac 2,056 du
Medium High Density 156.61 acres 20 du/ac 3,132 du
Medium Density** 477.41 acres 10 du/ac 4,744 du
Single Family**** 947.25 acres 4 du/ac 3,789 du
Estate Residential 30.4 acres 0.13 du/ac 4 du
Rural Residential/Agric. 549.95 acres .01 du/ac 5 du
Mixed Use 32.1 acres*** 515 du
Subtotal 2220.36 acres 14,245 du
PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC
Public/Semi-Public 93.1 acres .24 FAR .973 MSF
Semi-Public 10.5 acres .25 FAR
Subtotal 103.6 acres .973 MSF
SCHOOLS
Elementary School 66.5 acres 5 schools
Junior High School 21.3 acres 1 school
Subtotal 87.8 acres
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
City Park 56.3 acres 1 park
Community Park 97.0 acres 3 parks
Neighborhood Park 49.0 acres 7 parks
Neighborhood Square 16.7 acres 6 parks
Subtotal 219 acres 17 parks
Open Space 684.06 acres
TOTAL LAND AREA 4060.77 acres
4
Table 4.2 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Population and Employment Summary) shall be
amended as shown below (table footnotes not included):
TABLE 4.2
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY
Amended Per Resolution No.47-04,223-05, 58-07,37-08, 176-09, 76-10,55-12,92-12,210-12, 198-13, 19-14, 159-14,xx-14
Land Use Designation Development Sq Ft/ Persons/du Population
Employees
Commercial
Industrial Park .747 MSF 590 1,266
General 1.054 MSF 385 2,738
Commercial/Campus
Office*
General Commercial 3.817 MSF 510 7,484
Neighborhood .812 MSF 490 1,657
Commercial
Mixed Use** .045 MSF 490 92
Mixed Use 2/Campus .497 MSF 260 1,910
Office****
Campus Office 2.986 MSF 260 11,485
Public/Semi Public .973 MSF 590 1,740
Semi-Public 590
TOTAL: 10.931 MSF 28,372
Residential
High Density 2,056 2.0 4,112
Medium High Density 3,132 2.0 6,264
Medium Density 4,744 2.0 9,488
Single Family*** 3,789 3.2 12,125
Estate Residential 4 3.2 13
Mixed Use** 515 2.0 1,030
Rural Residential/Agric. 5 3.2 16
TOTAL: 1 14,245 1 1 1 33,048
Table 4.3 (Projected Jobs/Housing Balance) shall be amended as shown below (table footnotes
not included):
TABLE 4.3
CITY OF DUBLIN
PROJECTED JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE
(Amended Per Resolution No. 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 176-09, 76-10, 55-12, 92-12, 210-12, 198-13, 19-14, 159-14, xx-14)
PLANNING Dwelling Jobs Employed Balance Ratio
AREA Units Residents
Existing City of 7,100 12,210 12,000 -210 1.02:1.0
Dublin
Eastern Dublin 14,245 28,372 20,244 -8,128 1.40:1.0
Specific Plan
Area
TOTAL: 21,345 40,582 32,244 -8,338 1.26:1.0
5
Table 4.11 (Hacienda Gateway Subarea Development Potential) shall be amended as shown
below (table footnotes not included):
TABLE 4.11
HACIENDA GATEWAY
SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
(Amended Per Resolution 47-04, 198-13, 159-14, xx-14)
Designation Acres Density DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
General Commercial 85.8 .21 FAR .800 MSF
General Commercial 0 .38 FAR --
General Commercial/Campus Office 14.32 .27 FAR .167 MSF
Neighborhood Commercial 0.0 .30 FAR --
Campus Office 50.68 .37 FAR .817 MSF
Campus Office 19.0 .50 FAR .420 MSF
Campus Office 30.2 0.85 FAR 1.119 MSF
Mixed Use 27.5 .30-1.0 .359 MSF
FAR
Commercial Subtotal 227.5 3.682 MSF
Medium High Density Residential 16.2 20 du/ac 324 du
Residential Subtotal 16.2 324 du
Semi-Public -- -- 0 MSF
Total 243.7 3.682 MSF and 324 du
Appendix 4 of the EDSP (Land Use Summary by Land Owners) shall be amended to reflect the
changes in land use designations broken down by property owner.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this approval shall not take effect until the
Development Agreement for The Green Mixed Use Project takes effect and is recorded on the
Property.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2015 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
6
ORDINANCE NO. xx — 15
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
TO REZONE 27.5 ACRES AT 5144 AND 5344 MARTINELLI WAY TO A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND APPROVING THE RELATED STAGE 1 AND 2
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT
PLPA-2013-00013
(APNs 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-00, 986-0033-006-00)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place LLC, has submitted a
Planning Application to construct approximately 37,000 square feet of retail and restaurant
buildings with associated outdoor seating areas and six future residential neighborhoods with
372 units in multiple buildings on a 27.5 acre site. The proposal includes the approval of
General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Rezoning properties to
a new Planned Development Zoning District and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan, Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings only), Vesting Tentative
Map, Development Agreement, and certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report, among other related actions. These planning and implementing actions are collectively
known as "The Green Mixed Use Project" or the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, approval of the project as proposed requires rezoning the Project properties
to a new Planned Development Zoning District and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan; 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 Draft Supplement Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)
dated August 2014 for the proposed Project which reflected the City's independent judgment
and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-47
recommending that the City Council certify the Final SEIR for the project, which Resolution is
incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business
hours; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-49
recommending that the City Council approve rezoning the Project properties to a new Planned
Development Zoning District and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan,
which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during
normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated April 21, 2015 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project, including the General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendments, Rezoning properties to a new Planned Development Zoning District
and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review
1
(Commercial Buildings only), Vesting Tentative Map, and certification of a Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report, for the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project,
including the proposed rezoning of the Project properties to a new Planned Development Zoning
District and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, on April 21, 2015, at
which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, on , the City Council adopted Resolution -15
certifying The Green Mixed Use Project Final SEIR and adopting CEQA findings, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Final SEIR and all above-referenced reports,
recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Findings
A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows.
1. The Green Mixed Use Project ("the Project") PD-Planned Development zoning meets
the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 in that it provides a comprehensive development
plan that 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 Green Mixed Use Project under the PD-Planned Development
zoning will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the
surrounding area in that the site will provide new retail, restaurant, and residential units in
an area that has similar uses nearby and is also adjacent to existing and future
workplaces and residential neighborhoods.
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 Green Mixed Use Project will be
harmonious and compatible with existing and potential development in the surrounding
area in that the proposed Site Plan has taken into account sensitive adjacencies and will
provide a wide range of amenities to the surrounding neighborhoods.
2. The project site conditions were documented in the Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report (SEIR) that has been prepared, and the environmental impacts that have
been identified will be mitigated to the greatest degree possible. There are no site
challenges that were identified in the SEIR that will present an impediment to utilization of
the site for the intended purposes. There are no major physical or topographic
constraints and thus the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the retail
commercial center approved through the PD zoning.
2
3. With the implementation of the Mitigation Measures identified in the SEIR, the PD-
Planned Development zoning will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons
residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare in that the project will comply with all applicable development regulations and
standards and will implement all adopted mitigation measures.
4. The PD-Planned Development zoning is consistent with and in conformance with the
Dublin General Plan, as amended, in that the proposed use as a future mixed use
commercial/residential project is consistent with the Mixed Use land use designation for
the site.
C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council certified a Final
Supplemental EIR via Resolution -15 on prior to approving the Project.
SECTION 2:
Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code the City of Dublin Zoning
Map is amended to rezone the property described below to a Planned Development Zoning
District:
Approximately 27.5 acres at 5144 and 5344 Martinelli Way. APNs 986-0033-004-00,
986-0033-005-00, 986-0033-006-00.
("the Property"). A map of the rezoning area is shown below:
0
y
tl
3
SECTION 3.
The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Property are
set forth in the following Stage 1/2 Development Plan for the Project area, which is hereby
approved. Any amendments to the Stage 1/2 Development Plan shall be in accordance with
section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code or its successors.
Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan for The Green Mixed Use Project
This is a Stage 1/2 Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
This Development Plan meets all the requirements for both a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development
Plan and is adopted as part of the PD-Planned Development rezoning for The Green Mixed Use
Project, PLPA-2013-00013.
The PD-Planned Development Zoning District and this Stage 1/2 Development Plan provides
flexibility to encourage innovative development while ensuring that the goals, policies, and
action programs of the General Plan and provisions of Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance
are satisfied.
1. Zoning. The Zoning for the subject property is PD-Planned Development (PLPA-2013-
00013).
2. Statement of Permitted Uses for the Commercial Parcel (Lot 61 of Tract 8203 —
Sheet TM2.01).
Permitted Uses (as defined by the Zoning Ordinance):
• General outdoor seating areas (plaza seating areas, benches, chairs, cafe tables) not
dedicated to a specific user are permitted throughout the project area in any location.
• Retail-General and Retail-Neighborhood use types
• Offices - Professional/Administrative
• Personal Services
• Eating, drinking and entertainment establishments including the following:
• Eating and Drinking Establishments, including the following:
o Eating and Drinking Establishment
• Eating and Drinking Establishment— Specialty
• Eating and Drinking Establishment— Take Out
• Outdoor Dining Areas (supplemental to an existing indoor restaurant) are permitted
as identified on the Site Plan (Sheet A1.0.1 of the Project Plans). Outdoor Dining
Area is defined as a controlled outdoor dining space (not enclosed in a building,
but enclosed with a fence or barrier), which is supplemental to an indoor
restaurant and dedicated to the use of a single tenant or tenants. Additional
Outdoor Dining Areas may be permitted through a Site Development Review
Waiver
Permitted with a Conditional Use Permit and/or Zoning Clearance/Minor Use Permit (as
defined by the Zoning Ordinance):
• Community Facility
• Recreational Facility— Indoor
• Daycare Center
• Community Care Facility (Large)
• Nightclub
4
Prohibited Uses:
o Drive through facilities
Statement of Permitted Uses for the Residential Parcels (Lots 1-60 and Lots A-II of
Tract 8203 — Sheet TM2.01).
Permitted Uses (as defined by the Zoning Ordinance):
• Single-Family Residence
• Multi-Family Residence
• Family Day Care Home/Small (up to 8 children)
• Home Occupation
Permitted with a Conditional Use Permit and/or Zoning Clearance/Minor Use Permit (as
defined by the Zoning Ordinance):
• Community Care Facility (Small)
• Community Clubhouse
• Community Facility
• Day Care Center
Prohibited Uses:
o Any use not specifically noted above and determined by the Community Development
Director to be incompatible with residential uses on the project site
3. Stage 1 and 2 Site Plan.
The Stage 1/2 Development Plan is shown below and is also included as Sheet L1.0 in
the Project Plan Set, dated received August 11, 2014, on file at the Community
Development Department.
4 E
J.L
" ' y1 a' q uutl�k i aIJrxJ4G� rr
u NYLi� t-
31dWVap
d'
r
Ir•ig � � � � �i r, � !i�Li"'i r � °' d1 ;��� Pn r tr1 / �,�11 � I:ii�r 4
� Se�lptn ,
B� II m i
cape a" PaassitoYe Mail6o�� /y
s Lc Wtl s
/r Socia ardens Im eIr r reerw
t Jp G ay &aCl's Verde 5 I
Inse 'rr'"'% �I un TINUWx.1toIAIIIIIJI�Itdl1„kIF31 fl4a1� ,Y.4iJ I ,`I11 1Y1P;VN,2'VJIll.6.111JW31I,yi,�IalbIlilG�V MJIdIl�1k I •wtisrw �G
i ar a 74'
A „F'edebtnap Hecrea2rcn lfrail to BAF�T i�0< t l/O//�lliiUB/tall temcetl0v�tiimf
vJitFv vtiNew * I
i
r�� """, .. ,,,,�:uri�i/ roi�L�ei/r/.n-� l�,mn„ i ,.,,,,,�,�,.,� ^ ",.`,, „"✓ �/r��.r_ �,��,",� ,,,,, ,,, .���r
5
4. Site area, proposed densities, and development regulations.
Maximum Building Height: 50 feet
Signage Pursuant to an approved Master Sign Program
Minimum lot size Per approved Vesting Tentative Map (Sheet TM2.01 of the
Project Plans)
Maximum lot coverage Per approved Vesting Tentative Map (Sheet TM2.01 of the
Project Plans)
Maximum Building Area 40,000 square feet of enclosed commercial building area on
the Commercial Parcel and up to 400 units on the Residential
Parcels.
Maximum Floor Area .25 for the Commercial Parcel
Ratio/Density 19 units/net acre for the combined Residential Parcels
(maximum of 400 units over 21.7 net residential acres)
Parking Stall Dimensions Per Chapter 8.76 Off-Street Parking And Loading Regulations
Standards of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
Minimum Setbacks Per the Civil Site Plan (Sheet C1.01 of the Project Plans)
Parking Spaces Required
Commercial Uses Use Type Parking Req'd
Eating and 1 space per 100 s.f. accessible to
Drinking Est. customers, plus
1 space per 300 s.f. not accessible to
customers
Outdoor Dining 1-12 seats: no parking required.
13 or more seats: 1 space per 3 seats.
Eating and 1 space per 200 s.f.
Drinking Est. —
Specialty
Retail 1 space per 300 s.f.
Residential Uses 2 garage spaces per unit, plus
0.8 guest spaces per unit (Excess parking on commercial
parcels may be used to satisfy guest parking requirement)
5. Phasing Plan. In accordance with the Project Development Agreement.
6. Preliminary Landscape Plan. Sheets L.1 through L.14, inclusive, of the Project Plans
illustrate the conceptual landscape design.
7. Architectural Standards. The conceptual architectural design of the project shall reflect
the following standards as illustrated in the Project Plans. The architectural design shall:
■ Offer a modern interpretation of agrarian vernacular architecture that had a place in the
Tri-Valley in the early- to mid- 20th century. The design aesthetic of this community is
intended to be a welcomed counterpoint to other more traditionally suburban Dublin
communities.
• Utilize authentic and rich materials that are utilized and employed to express themselves
in their natural state, including emphasis on the use of metal and wood as the main
building forms. The use of stucco should be understated. Siding should be expressed in
hues that allow the texture and scale to read. Color should only be used as an accent and
not used to mask the quality of the materials proposed.
6
• Highlight the natural richness in the material palette that in turn, allows the color palette
for the bodies of the buildings to be refined and sophisticated.
• Utilize accent colors purposefully on elements such as Art, Entries, Accent Panels,
Accent Trims, and Signage.
• Incorporate features such as different wall planes, heights, wall textures, roof elements,
storefront designs, awnings, canopies, trellises, signs, light fixtures and landscaping to
contribute layers of detail at the pedestrian level.
• Provide functional outdoor plazas where people will gather and socialize, with
landscaping, outdoor seating, enhanced paving treatment, and other features to provide
an appropriate urban scale for the center.
8. Consistency with General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan. The proposed
project is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (as
amended).
9. Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. In accordance with the Project Development
Agreement.
10.Aerial Photo. An aerial photo is on file with the Community Development Department.
11.Applicable Requirements of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Except as specifically
provided in this Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan or the Project Development
Agreement, the use, development, improvement and maintenance of the Commercial
Parcel of the project site shall be governed by the C-2 (General Commercial Zoning
District) provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance pursuant to Section 8.32.060.C. The
use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Residential Parcels of the
project site shall be governed by the R-M (Multi-Family Residential Zoning District)
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. No development shall occur on either the
Commercial or Residential parcels on this property until a Site Development Review
permit has been approved.
12.Compliance with adopted Mitigation Measures. The Applicant/Developer shall comply
with all applicable action programs and mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment EIR and The Green Mixed Use Project
Supplemental EIR.
SECTION 4.
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 5. Prior PD Zoning Superseded.
Ordinance No. 34-08 establishing the existing Planned Development Zoning District is
superseded as to the Project site.
7
SECTION 6.
This ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days from and after its passage.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this
day of 2015, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:IPk20131PLPA-2013-00013 The Green GPA-SPA-PDICC 09.16.141Attxx-CC PD Ord.docx
8
RESOLUTION NO. xx-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE COMMERCIAL
BUILDINGS AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 8203 FOR
THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT
PLPA-2013-00013 (APNs 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-00, 986-0033-006-00)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place LLC, has submitted a
Planning Application to construct approximately 37,000 square feet of retail and restaurant
buildings with associated outdoor seating areas and six future residential neighborhoods with
372 units in multiple buildings on a 27.5 acre site. The proposal includes the approval of
General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Rezoning properties to
a new Planned Development Zoning District and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan, Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings only), Vesting Tentative
Map, Development Agreement, and certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report, among other related actions. These planning and implementing actions are collectively
known as "The Green Mixed Use Project" or the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the current request includes Vesting Tentative Map 8203 to subdivide the
entire 27.5 acre parcel, however, the proposed Site Development Review is only for the
commercial component of the project. The Site Development Review application for the
residential buildings is not being considered at this time and will be reviewed by the Planning
Commission at a later date; and
WHEREAS, the project site is located within a Planned Development Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the Project Plans, attached as Exhibit A, illustrate the site layout and building
elevations for the eight future Commercial Buildings on the project site, which comprise
approximately 37,000 square feet of future retail and restaurant buildings with associated
outdoor seating areas, which are permitted by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General
Plan, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the Project Plans also illustrate the proposed subdivision of a single 27.5
acre parcel into 96 separate parcels (1 commercial parcel, 60 residential parcels, and 35 parcels
for future streets, parking, and common areas, ranging in size from 0.1 acres to 5.8 acres; and
WHEREAS, the Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings only) and Vesting
Tentative Map application collectively defines this "Project" and is available and on file in the
Community Development Department; 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 Draft Supplement Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)
dated August 2014 for the proposed Project which reflected the City's independent judgment
and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated August 26, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project, including the General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendments, Rezoning properties to a new Planned Development Zoning District
and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review
(Commercial Buildings only), Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement, and certification
of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-47
recommending that the City Council certify the Final SEIR for the project, which Resolution is
incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business
hours; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-48
recommending that the City Council approve the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan amendments, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available
for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-49
recommending that the City Council approve the proposed Rezoning of properties to a new
Planned Development Zoning District and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan for the Project, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and
available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-50
recommending that the City Council approve the proposed Development Agreement for the
Project, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall
during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing on said application on November
47 2014 for this project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by
law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council approve
the Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings only) and Vesting Tentative Map
application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use independent judgment and considered all
said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth.
WHEREAS, on April 21, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution xx-15, certifying The
Green Mixed Use Project Final SEIR and adopting CEQA findings, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project; and
2
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Final SEIR and all above-referenced reports,
recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does
hereby make the following Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings only) findings and
determinations regarding The Green Mixed Use Project on approximately 27.5 acres at 5144
and 5344 Martinelli Way:
A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.104 (Site Development
Review) of the Zoning Ordinance, with the General Plan, and any applicable Specific
Plans and design guidelines because: 1) The project provides an orderly, attractive
and harmonious development compatible with the site's environmental constraints
and with surrounding properties and neighborhoods. The development gives
thoughtful consideration to building location, architectural and landscape design and
theme, vehicular and pedestrian access and on-site circulation, parking and traffic
impact. It complies with development regulations and the requirements of the zoning
district, as required by Section 8.104.020.A of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; 2) the
project is utilizing traditional building forms with contemporary, high-quality materials
and finishes in compliance with the design guidelines of the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan and Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan; 3) the
project will provide unique, varied, and distinct commercial opportunities, which will
serve to activate the area and provide services to existing and future residents and
workers in the vicinity; 4) the proposed project will conform to the density, design, and
allowable uses as stated in the Planned Development Zoning as required by Section
8.104.020.13 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; 5) the project includes streetscape
enhancements to complement those already in place; and 6) the project is consistent
with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as amended.
B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance because:
1) The architecture and landscape design for the project provides an appropriate
pedestrian scale with commercial retail uses, restaurants and the proposed layout of
buildings, landscaping and parking are well-suited to the uses; 2) the overall design of
the project is consistent with the design requirements of the Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan; 3) the proposed development is compatible with the General Plan
Land Use designation of Mixed Use (as amended) which allows for a retail and
restaurant uses which the proposed project will achieve; and 4) the proposed project
meets the intent of the Dublin General Plan which discourages projects that do not
relate well to the surrounding developments and the proposed project is compatible
with the surrounding neighborhoods that includes office, residential, and commercial
uses in the vicinity of transit and transportation opportunities.
C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding
properties, and the lot(s) in which the project is proposed because: 1) The
architecture and landscape design for the project provides a unique, yet appropriate,
pedestrian scale with commercial retail uses, restaurants and the proposed layout of
buildings, landscaping and parking are well-suited to the uses; 2) the overall design of
the project is consistent with the design requirements of the Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan; 3) the proposed development is compatible with the General Plan
Land Use designation of Mixed Use (as amended) which allows for a retail and
3
restaurant uses which the proposed project will achieve; and 4) the proposed project
meets the intent of the Dublin General Plan which discourages projects that do not
relate well to the surrounding developments and the proposed project is compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood that includes office, residential, and commercial
uses in the vicinity of transit and transportation opportunities.
D. The subject site is suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development
because: 1) the project will provide the desired mix of retail stores, eating and
drinking establishments, and associated uses that conform to the Mixed Use land use
designation of the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (as
amended); 2) the project provides for its own infrastructure and required services and
is designed to include sufficient vehicular and pedestrian access, with parking to
support the uses; and 3) the proposed density of the site is consistent with the
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (as amended).
E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed because: 1) the
project site is relatively flat; 2) the major roadway and utility infrastructure to serve the
site already exists, and 3) future approval of grading and improvement plans will
enable the site to be modified to suit the project, which will be developed for the site in
accordance with City policies and regulations.
F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the design,
site layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, screening of
unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar elements result in a
project that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other
developments in the vicinity because: 1) the architectural style and materials will be
unique to this project, yet compatible and complementary to the contemporary
architectural style, colors, and materials being utilized on other commercial projects in
the City; 2) the project is utilizing traditional building forms with contemporary, high-
quality materials and finishes in compliance with the design guidelines of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan; 3) the size and scale of the development will be similar to other
retail commercial shopping centers in the project vicinity; and 4) unsightly uses (e.g.
waste facilities, parking lots) shall be screened with appropriate materials that are
architecturally compatible with the building design.
G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and
coverage of plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the
project to ensure visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for
the public because: 1) the Preliminary Landscape Plan for the project site emphasizes
the creation of a comfortable pedestrian environment that will include generous
sidewalks along the main north-south drive aisle adorned with street trees and
pedestrian-scaled lighting; 2) landscaping will be provided throughout the parking
fields both at the front and rear of the project buildings; and 3) the project perimeter
and interior landscaping is consistent with other commercial development in the
vicinity and conforms to the requirements of the City's Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance.
H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure the proper circulation for bicyclist,
pedestrians, and automobiles because: 1) all infrastructure including driveways,
4
pathways, sidewalks, and street lighting have been reviewed for conformance with
City policies, regulations, and best practices and have been designed with multi-
modal travel in mind; and 2) development of this project will conform to the major
public improvements already installed allowing patrons the safe and efficient use of
these facilities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby
make the following Vesting Tentative Map findings and determinations regarding Vesting
Tentative Map 8203 for The Green Mixed Use Project:
A. Vesting Tentative Map 8203 is consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision
regulations and related ordinances.
B. The design and improvements of Vesting Tentative Map 8203 are consistent with the
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan objectives, polices, general land uses,
and programs as they relate to the subject property in that it is the subdivision of three
parcels that currently comprise the 27.5 acre project site into 96 parcels: one 5.8 acre
commercial parcel, 60 residential parcels with multiple units in each building/parcel,
and 35 street/circulation/parking area parcels.
C. Vesting Tentative Map 8203 is consistent with the General Provisions and
Development Standards for the Planned Development Zoning District for The Green
Mixed Use Project (PLPA-2013-00013), and therefore is consistent with the City of
Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
D. The project site is located adjacent to major roads, including Hacienda Drive,
Martinelli Way, and Arnold Road, on approximately 27.5± acres of land. The
topography of the property is generally flat. The site is physically suitable for the type
and intensity of the proposed commercial/residential mixed use development that is
proposed.
E. Vesting Tentative Map 8203 will not cause environmental damage or substantially
injure fish or wildlife of their habitat or cause public health concerns because the
proposed project is for the subdivision of the land and not for any physical
improvements.
F. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public
at large, or access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The
City Engineer has reviewed the map and title report and has not found any conflicting
easements of this nature.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby
approve Vesting Tentative Map 8203 and Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings
only) for The Green Mixed Use Project, as shown on plans submitted by Stockbridge/BHV,
stamped received August 11, 2014, subject to the conditions included below.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance
of building permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Department review
5
and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for
monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval. [PL.] Planning, [B] Building, [PO] Police,
[PW] Public Works [P&CS] Parks & Community Services, [ADM] Administration/City Attorney,
[FIN] Finance, [F] Alameda County Fire Department, [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District,
[CO] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, [Z7] Zone 7. Anything to the
contrary in these Conditions of Approval notwithstanding, if the City enters into a Development
Agreement with the project sponsor, if any term of these conditions of approval are in conflict
with the provisions of the Development Agreement, the Development Agreement shall take
precedence and shall control.
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
GENERAL CONDITIONS — SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW and VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 8203
1. Approval. This Site Development Review (Commercial only) and PL Ongoing
Vesting Tentative Map 8203 approval for The Green Mixed Use
Project establishes the detailed design concepts and regulations for
the project. Development pursuant to this Site Development Review
(Commercial only)/Vesting Tentative Map approval generally shall
conform to the project plans submitted by Stockbridge/BHV dated
received August 11, 2014 and on file in the Community Development
Department, and other plans, text, and diagrams — including the
color and material board — relating to this Site Development Review
(Commercial only)/Vesting Tentative Map approval, unless modified
by the Conditions of Approval contained herein.
2. Permit Expiration. Approval of this Site Development PL One year After
Review/Vesting Tentative Map approval shall be valid for one (1) Effective Date
year from the approval of the project by the Planning Commission or or as specified
as identified in the project Development Agreement. This approval in the Project
shall be null and void in the event the approved use fails to be Development
established within the prescribed time. Commencement of the use Agreement
means the establishment of use pursuant to the Permit approval or,
demonstrating substantial progress toward commencing such use. If
there is a dispute as to whether the Permit has expired, the City may
hold a noticed public hearing to determine the matter. Such a
determination may be processed concurrently with revocation
proceedings in appropriate circumstances. If a Permit expires, a
new application must be made and processed according to the
requirements of this Ordinance.
3. Time Extension. Unless otherwise addressed in the Project PL One Year
Development Agreement, the original approving decision-maker Following
may, upon the Applicant's written request for an extension of Expiration
approval prior to expiration, upon the determination that all Date
Conditions of Approval remain adequate and all applicable findings
of approval will continue to be met, grant an extension of the
approval for a period not to exceed six (6) months. Subsequent six
month extensions may be granted at the discretion of the
Community Development Director. All time extension requests shall
be noticed and a public hearing shall be held before the original
hearing body.
4. Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall operate this use in PL On-going
compliance with the Conditions of Approval of this Site Development
Review, the approved plans and the regulations established in the
Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions specified
may be subject to enforcement action.
5. Effective Date. The approval is contingent on the City Council PL Ongoing
6
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
taking the following actions related to the project:
1. Certifying a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
and Adoption of Environmental Findings under CEQA for the
project;
2. Adopting a Resolution amending the General Plan and the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for the project;
3. Adopting an Ordinance approving a Planned Development
Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan
for the project; and
4. Adopting an Ordinance approving a Development Agreement for
the project.
If the above actions do not take place, the SDR/Tentative Map
approval is null and void.
This approval shall not take effect until all the City Council approvals
under items 1-4 are in full force and effect.
6. Revocation of Permit. The Site Development Review/Vesting PL On-going
Tentative Map approval shall be revocable for cause in accordance
with Section 8.96.020.1 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any
violation of the terms or conditions of this permit shall be subject to
citation.
7. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The Applicant/ Various Building
Developer shall comply with applicable City of Dublin Fire Prevention Permit
Bureau, Dublin Public Works Department, Dublin Building Issuance
Department, Dublin Police Services, Alameda County Flood Control
District Zone 7, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, Alameda
County Public and Environmental Health, Dublin San Ramon
Services District and the California Department of Health Services
requirements and standard conditions. Prior to issuance of building
permits or the installation of any improvements related to this
project, the Developer shall supply written statements from each
such agency or department to the Planning Department, indicating
that all applicable conditions required have been or will be met.
8. Required Permits. Developer shall obtain all permits required by PW Building
other agencies including, but not limited to Alameda County Permit
Environmental Health, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Issuance
Conservation District (Zone 7), California Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Caltrans, or other regional/state agencies as required by law.
Copies of the permits shall be provided to the Public Works
Department.
9. Fees. Except as otherwise provided in the Development Various Building
Agreement, the Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable fees in Permit
effect at the time of building permit issuance, including, but not Issuance
limited to, Planning fees, Building fees, Traffic Impact Fees, TVTC
fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District fees, Public Facilities fees,
Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, Fire Facilities
Impact fees, Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District
(Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; or any other fee that
may be adopted and applicable.
10. Indemnification. The Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold ADM On-going
harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees
from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its
agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board,
Planning Commission, City Council, Community Development
Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee,
or agency of the City to the extent such actions are brought within
the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or
other applicable law; provided, however, that The Developer's duty
to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the
City's promptly notifying The Developer of any said claim, action, or
proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such
actions or proceedings.
11. Clarification of Conditions. In the event that there needs to be PW On-going
clarification to the Conditions of Approval, the Community
Development Director and the City Engineer have the authority to
clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Developer
without going to a public hearing. The Director of Community
Development and the City Engineer also have the authority to make
minor modifications to these conditions without going to a public
hearing in order for the Applicant/Developer to fulfill needed
improvements or mitigations resulting from impacts to this project.
12. Clean-up. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for clean- PL On-going
up and disposal of project related trash to maintain a safe, clean,
and litter-free site.
13. Modifications. Modifications or changes to this Site Development PL On-going
Review/Vesting Tentative Map approval may be considered by the
Community Development Director in compliance with Chapter 8.104
of the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the Subdivision
Ordinance.
14. Archaeology. Should any prehistoric, cultural, or historic artifacts PL During
be exposed during excavation and construction operations, the Construction
Department of Community Development shall be notified and work
shall cease immediately until an archaeologist, who is certified by
the Society of California Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of
Professional Archaeology (SOPA), is consulted to evaluate the
significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures,
if deemed necessary, prior to resuming ground breaking construction
activities. Standardized procedures for evaluating accidental finds
and discovery of human remains shall be followed as prescribed in
Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the California Environmental
Quality Act Guidelines. Compliance with this condition required
throughout construction.
15. Equipment Screening. All electrical equipment, fire risers, and/or PL Building
mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view by Permit
landscaping and/or architectural features. Any roof-mounted Issuance
equipment shall be completely screened from adjacent street view and
by materials architecturally compatible with the building and to the Through
satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The Building Completion/
Permit plans shall show the location of all equipment and screening On-going
for review and approval by the Director of Community Development.
16. Public Art. The Applicant/Developer intends to satisfy the City's PL, Parks Public Art Plan
requirement for Public Art through the installation of art pieces on the shall be
project site, which could potentially also include installations on the developed
Persimmon Place project site (north of Martinelli Way). The prior to
Applicant/Developer will coordinate the public art project for the issuance of
project with the City's Heritage and Cultural Arts Manager in the first
8
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
compliance with Chapter 8.58 of the Zoning Ordinance. Building
Permit and all
installations
shall be
complete prior
to occupancy
of the first
building on the
project site
17. Inclusionary Housing. The Applicant/Developer will satisfy the PL In accordance
requirements of Chapter 8.68 of the Zoning Ordinance (Inclusionary with the
Zoning Regulations) in accordance with the Project Development Project
Agreement. Development
Agreement
18. Colors. The exterior colors of the buildings shall be in compliance PL Occupancy
with the Color and Material Board approved with the Project Plans.
If paint is utilized, the Applicant shall paint small portions of the
building the approved colors for review and approval by the Director
of Community Development prior to painting the entire buildings,
whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
19. Approval of Design Details Prior to Full Installation. Details of PL Building or
the following site features and improvements shall be reviewed and Sitework
approved by the Community Development Director prior to permit Permit
issuance: Issuance
1. Amenities to be installed in the plaza/outdoor spaces next to
and between buildings (e.g. on the north side of Building 400)
that are intended to create a comfortable pedestrian
environment. Amenities could be hanging lights, additional
landscaping, or other art/design elements that serve to frame
and enclose the space.
2. Bollard/post element to be installed on the northern edge of the
commercial area along Martinelli and a portion of Hacienda.
3. Bicycle lockers and bike racks.
4. Paving pattern, colors, material for pedestrian pathways on
sidewalks, through the parking areas, and in the commercial
and residential plaza areas.
5. Enclosure details for outdoor dining/seating areas.
6. Construction and material details for trash enclosures.
20. Outdoor Furniture. Outdoor furniture (including tables and chairs PL Ongoing
for outdoor seating/eating areas) shall be suitable for all-weather
conditions and made of high-quality, durable materials. Umbrellas
shall have no more than two colors. Logos, or the name of the
restaurant establishment, may be printed on the umbrella canvas,
but logos for products sold are prohibited.
21. Outdoor Dining/Seating Areas. Outdoor dining/seating areas not PL Ongoing
shown on the Project Plans may be permitted through a Site
Development Review Waiver. Outdoor dining/seating areas shown
on the Project Plans do not need any additional review/approval
except approval of any enclosure details. Outdoor dining/seating
areas (including furniture and barriers/enclosures) shall be
maintained in good condition at all times by the owners/operators of
the associated dining establishment or the retail center property
management.
9
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
22. Master Sign Program. A Master Sign Program will be reviewed PL Installation of
and approved at the Staff-level for all project-related signage any project-
including, but not limited to, wall signs, monument signs, community related
identification signage, address signage, directional signage, parking signage
signage, speed limit signage, retail tenant signage, and other
signage deemed necessary by the City. Any wall and monument
signs shown in the Project Plans are for illustrative purposes only
and the full details of the sign sizes, materials, and construction shall
be shown in the separate sign package.
23. Construction Trailer. The Applicant/Developer shall obtain a PL Establishment
Temporary Use Permit prior to the establishment of any construction of the
trailer, storage shed, or container units on the project site. temporary use
24. Final Building and Site Improvement Plans shall be reviewed and PL Issuance of
approved by the Community Development Department staff prior to Building
the issuance of a building permit. All such plans shall insure: Permits
a. That standard non-residential security requirements as
established by the Dublin Police Department are provided.
b. That ramps, special parking spaces, signing, and other
appropriate physical features for the disabled, are provided
throughout the site for all publicly used facilities.
c. That continuous concrete curbing is provided for all parking
stalls, if necessary.
d. That exterior lighting of the building and site is not directed onto
adjacent properties and the light source is shielded from direct
offsite viewing.
e. That all mechanical equipment, including air conditioning
condensers, are architecturally screened from view, and that
electrical transformers are either underground, architecturally
screened, or screened by landscape of an adequate size.
Electrical and gas meters shall be screened to the greatest
degree possible.
f. That all vents, gutters, downspouts, flashings, etc., are painted
to match the color of adjacent surface.
g. That all materials and colors are to be as approved by the
Dublin Community Development Department. Once constructed
or installed, all improvements are to be maintained in
accordance with the approved plans. Any changes, which affect
the exterior character, shall be resubmitted to the Dublin
Community Development Department for approval.
h. That all exterior architectural elements visible from view and not
detailed on the plans be finished in a style and in materials in
harmony with the exterior of the building. All materials shall
wrap to the inside corners and terminate at a perpendicular wall
plane.
i. That all other public agencies that require review of the project
are supplied with copies of the final building and site plans and
that compliance is obtained with at least their minimum Code
requirements.
10
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
25. Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Applicant/ Developer shall PL On-going
comply with The Green Mixed Use Project Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified by City Council
Resolution xx-xx, including all mitigation measures, action programs,
and implementation measures contained therein. The FSEIR is on
file with the Community Development Department.
26. Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans. Final landscape plans, PL Landscape
including utility and tree coordination plans, layout plans, irrigation plan approval
plans, planting plans, and guarantees, shall be reviewed and and
approved by the City Engineer and the Community Development installation
Director prior to the issuance of the building permit. Plans shall be
generally consistent with the layout of the Preliminary Landscape
drawings included in the Project Plan Set prepared by Smith + Smith
Landscape Architects, received by the Planning Division on August
11, 2014, except as modified by the Conditions listed below or as
required by the Community Development Director to address specific
site constraints or conditions. At the Final Landscape Plan stage,
the tree and plant material selections shall be reviewed in detail as
the areas of the site needed for bioretention/water quality are
finalized through the development of detailed Site Improvement
Plans. Particular attention shall be paid to ensuring that plant
material shown in bioretention areas are well-suited for those soil
conditions. Alternative species shall be considered to ensure
compatibility with the contemporary look and feel of the building
architecture and overall design aesthetic.
The Final Landscape Plans shall ensure:
a. That plant material is utilized which will be capable of healthy
growth within the given range of soil and climate.
b. That proposed landscape screening is of a height and density
so that it provides a positive visual impact within three years
from the time of planting.
c. All trees that are on the perimeter of the project site and along
the main north-south drive aisle shall be 24" box minimum, with
at least 30% at 36" box or greater. Other trees located
throughout the parking lot and the project site shall be 15 gallon
and 24" box. All shrubs shall be 5 gallon minimum. All
groundcover shall be 1 gallon in size. These standards shall be
met unless a superior design concept is proposed by the
Applicant and accepted by the City.
d. That concrete curbing is to be used at the edges of all planters
and paving surfaces where applicable.
e. That all cut and fill slopes conform to the Tentative map and
conditions detailed in the Site Development Review plan set.
f. That a guarantee from the owners or contractors shall be
required guaranteeing all shrubs and ground cover, all trees,
and the irrigation system for one year.
g. That a permanent maintenance agreement on all landscaping will
be required from the owner insuring regular irrigation,
fertilization and weed abatement, if applicable.
h. The Layout Plan shall illustrate the design of all hardscape
11
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
elements including walls, fences, gates, light locations, at grade
or above grade utility boxes and vaults, walkways and
decorative pavement.
i. The Irrigation Plan shall utilize low flow, durable, irrigation
equipment and the design shall comply with Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance (WELD) requirements.
j. Construction details of raised planters, walkways, paths,
benches, walls, fences and other architectural features as
appropriate to the project.
k. All pole light locations shall be coordinated with the placement
of trees to eliminate conflicts between the trees and lights and
so that the light is not blocked by the growth of the trees.
27. Landscaping at southern property line (adjacent to 1-580). The PL Approval of
final Landscape Plan shall identify vine, groundcover, and shrub Landscape
planting adjacent to the new fence at the property line that will grow Plans
up the fence and mature quickly to provide visual screening between
the freeway and the project.
28. Landscaping at Street/Drive Aisle Intersections. Landscaping PL Ongoing
shall not obstruct the sight distance of motorists, pedestrians or
bicyclists. Except for trees, landscaping (and/or landscape
structures such as walls) at drive aisle intersections shall not be
taller than 30 inches above the curb. Landscaping shall be kept at a
minimum height and fullness giving patrol officers and the general
public surveillance capabilities of the area.
29. Plant Clearances. All trees planted shall meet the following PL Landscape
clearances: plan approval
a. 6' from the face of building walls or roof eaves. and
b. 7' from fire hydrants, storm drains, sanitary sewers and/or gas installation
lines.
c. 5' from top of wing of driveways, mailboxes, water, telephone
and/or electrical mains
d. 15' from stop signs, street or curb sign returns.
e. 15' from either side of street lights.
30. Lighting. The Applicant/Developer shall prepare a photometric plan PL, PW, Building
to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Engineer, Director of PO Permit
Community Development, the City's Consulting Landscape Architect Issuance
and Dublin Police Services. The photometric plan shall show lighting
levels which takes into consideration poles, low walls and other
obstructions. Exterior lighting shall be provided within the surface
parking lot and on the building, and shall be of a design and
placement so as not to cause glare onto adjoining properties,
businesses or to vehicular traffic. Lighting used after daylight hours
shall be adequate to provide for security needs. The parking lot
lights shall be designed to eliminate any pockets of high and low
illuminated areas. Prior to Occupancy, the Applicant shall request an
inspection of the lighting levels in the structure to determine if
lighting is sufficient. If additional lights are required to be installed to
meet the 1.0 foot-candle requirement, the Applicant shall do so prior
to Occupancy.
31. Landscaping. Applicant/Developer shall construct all landscaping PL, PW Landscape
within the site and along the project frontage to the street curb and plan approval
gutter. and
installation
32. Backflow Prevention Devices. The Landscape Plan shall show the PL, PW, F Landscape
location of all backflow prevention devises. The location and plan approval
12
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
screening of the backflow prevention devices shall be reviewed and and
approved by City staff. installation
33. Root Barriers and Tree Staking. The Final Landscape Plans shall PL, PW Landscape
provide details showing root barriers and tree staking will be installed plan approval
which meet current City specifications. and
installation
34. Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. The Applicant/ Developer PL Landscape
shall submit written documentation to the Public Works Department plan approval
(in the form of a Landscape Documentation Package and other and
required documents) that the development conforms to the City's installation
Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance.
35. Building Codes and Ordinances. All project construction shall B Through
conform to all building codes and ordinances in effect at the time of Completion
building permit.
36. Retaining Walls. All retaining walls over 30 inches in height and in B Through
a walkway shall be provided with guardrails. All retaining walls over Completion
24 inches with a surcharge or 36 inches without a surcharge shall
obtain permits and inspections from the Building & Safety Division.
37. Phased Occupancy Plan. If occupancy is requested to occur in B Occupancy of
phases, then all physical improvements within each phase pertaining any affected
to a particular building within the phase shall be required to be building
completed prior to occupancy of any such building within that phase
except for items specifically excluded in an approved Phased
Occupancy Plan, or minor handwork items, approved by the
Department of Community Development. The Phased Occupancy
Plan shall be submitted to the Directors of Community Development
and Public Works for review and approval a minimum of 45 days
prior to the request for occupancy of any building covered by said
Phased Occupancy Plan. Any phasing shall provide for adequate
vehicular access to all parcels in each phase, and shall substantially
conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. No
individual building shall be occupied until the immediately adjoining
area is finished, safe, accessible, and provided with all reasonable
expected services and amenities, and separated from remaining
additional construction activity. Subject to approval of the Director of
Community Development, the completion of landscaping may be
deferred due to inclement weather or potential harm or disruption
due to nearby construction activities of later phases with the posting
of a bond for the value of the deferred landscaping and associated
improvements.
38. Building Permits. To apply for building permits, B Issuance of
Applicant/Developer shall submit five (5) sets of construction plans Building
to the Building & Safety Division for plan check. Each set of plans Permits
shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of
Approval. The notations shall clearly indicate how all Conditions of
Approval will or have been complied with. Construction plans will
not be accepted without the annotated resolutions attached to each
set of plans. Applicant/Developer will be responsible for obtaining
the approvals of all participation non-City agencies prior to the
issuance of building permits.
39. Construction Drawings. Construction plans shall be fully B Issuance of
dimensioned (including building elevations) accurately drawn building
(depicting all existing and proposed conditions on site), and permits
prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer.
13
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
All structural calculations shall be prepared and signed by a
California licensed Architect or Engineer. The site plan, landscape
plan and details shall be consistent with each other.
40. Air Conditioning Units. Air conditioning units and ventilation ducts B Occupancy of
shall be screened from public view with materials compatible to the Unit
main building.
41. Temporary Fencing. Temporary Construction fencing shall be B Through
installed along the perimeter of all work under construction. Completion
42. Addressing B
a) Provide a site plan with the City of Dublin's address grid Prior to
overlaid on the plans (1 to 30 scale). Highlight all exterior release of
door openings on plans (front, rear, etc.). The site plan shall addresses
include a single large format page showing the entire project
and individual sheets for each building. 3 copies on full size
sheets and 5 copies reduced sheets.
b) Address signage shall be provided as per the Dublin Prior to
Commercial Security Code. permitting
c) Address will be required on all doors leading to the exterior of Prior to
the building. Addresses shall be illuminated and be able to be
seen from the street, 4 inches in height minimum. occupancy
43. Engineer Observation. The Engineer of record shall be retained to B Scheduling
provide observation services for all components of the lateral and the final
vertical design of the building, including nailing, hold-downs, straps, frame
shear, roof diaphragm and structural frame of building. A written inspection
report shall be submitted to the City Inspector prior to scheduling the
final frame inspection.
44. Foundation. Geotechnical Engineer for the soils report shall review B Permit
and approve the foundation design. A letter shall be submitted to issuance
the Building Division on the approval.
45. Electronic File: The applicant/developer shall submit all building B Issuance of
drawings and specifications for this project in an electronic format to the final
the satisfaction of the Building Official prior to the issuance of occupancy
building permits. Additionally, all revisions made to the building
plans during the project shall be incorporated into an "As Built"
electronic file and submitted prior to the issuance of the final
occupancy.
46. Construction Trailer. Due to size and nature of the development, B Ongoing
the applicant/developer, shall provide a construction trailer with all
hook ups or sufficient space within a construction trailer for use by
City Inspection personnel during the time of construction as
determined necessary by the Building Official. In the event that the
City has their own construction trailer, the applicant/developer shall
provide a site with appropriate hook ups in close proximity to the
project site to accommodate this trailer. The applicant/developer
shall cause the trailer to be moved from its current location at the
time necessary as determined by the Building Official at the
Applicant/Developer's expense.
47. Copies of Approved Plans. Applicant shall provide City with 2 B 30 days after
reduced (1/2 size) copies of the City of Dublin stamped approved permit and
plan. each revision
issuance
48. Solar Zone — CA Energy Code. Show the location of the Solar B Through
14
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
Zone on the roof and site plans. Detail the orientation of the Solar Completion
Zone. This condition of approval will be waived if the project meets
the exceptions provided in the CA Energy Code.
49. Accessible Parking. The required number of accessible parking B Through
stalls, the design and location of the accessible parking stalls shall Completion
be as required by the CA Building Code. The number and locations
in the SDR are for reference only and are not approved.
50. Accessory Structures. Building permits are required for all trash B Through
enclosures and associated amenities / structures and are required to Completion
meet the accessibility and building codes.
51. 60-Foot No Build Covenant. Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code B Prior to
Section 7.32.130, the owner shall file with the Building Official a Permitting
Covenant and Agreement Regarding Maintenance of Yards for an
Oversized Building binding such owner, his heirs, and assignees, to
set aside a 60-foot required yard as unobstructed space having no
improvements. After execution by the owner and Building Official,
such covenant shall be recorded in the Alameda County Recorder's
Office, and shall continue in effect so long as an oversized building
remains or unless otherwise released by authority of the Building
Official.
52. CA Green Building Code. B Prior to
a) Project shall install short and long term bicycle stalls meeting Permitting
the requirements of the CA Green Building Code. The
location, style and number shall be submitted to the Building
Official for review and approval.
b) Clean Air, Vanpool and Electric Vehicle parking stalls shall be
provided. The location and number shall meet or exceed the
requirements of the CA Green Building Code.
53. The project shall comply with all Building and Fire Code Fire At permit
requirements at the time of permit issuance. issuance
54. New Fire Sprinkler System & Monitoring Requirements Fire Occupancy
In accordance with The Dublin Fire Code, fire sprinklers shall be
installed in the building. The system shall be in accordance with the
NFPA 13, the CA Fire Code and CA Building Code. This may be a
deferred submittal.
a. Sprinkler Plans. (Deferred Submittal Item). Submit detailed
mechanical drawings of all sprinkler modifications, including cut
sheets, listing sheets and calculations to the Fire Department for
approval and permit prior to installation.
b. All sprinkler system components shall remain in compliance with
the applicable N.F.P.A. 13 Standard, the CA Fire Code and the
CA Building Code.
c. Underground Plans. (Deferred Submittal Item). Submit
detailed shop drawings for the fire water supply system, including
cut sheets, listing sheets and calculations to the Fire Department
for approval and permit prior to installation. All underground and
fire water supply system components shall be in compliance with
the applicable N.F.P.A. 13, 24, 20, 22 Standards, the CA Fire
Code and the CA Building Code. The system shall be
hydrostatically tested and inspected prior to being covered. Prior
to the system being connected to any fire protection system, a
system flush shall be witnessed by the Fire Department.
d. Central Station Monitoring. Automatic fire extinguishing
15
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
systems installed within buildings shall have all control valves
and flow devices electrically supervised and maintained by an
approved central alarm station. Zoning and annunciation of
central station alarm signals shall be submitted to the Fire
Department for approval. The central station monitoring service
shall be either certificated or placarded as defined in N.F.P.A.
Standard No. 72. Assure the specific account is UL Certificated
or Placarded and not just the monitoring station.
55. Fire Alarm (detection) System Required in Assembly / Fire Occupancy
Mercantile Occupancy.
A Fire Alarm-Detection System shall be installed throughout the
building so as to provide full property protection, including
combustible concealed spaces, as required by NFPA 72. The
system shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 72, CA Fire,
Building, Electrical, and Mechanical Codes.
If the system is intended to serve as an evacuation system,
compliance with the horn/strobe requirements for the entire building
must also be met. All automatic fire extinguishing systems shall be
interconnected to the fire alarm system so as to activate an alarm if
activated and to monitor control valves. Delayed egress locks shall
meet requirements of C.F.C.
56. FD Building Key Box for Building Access. A Fire Department Key Fire Occupancy
Box shall be installed at the main entrance to all commercial
buildings. Note these locations on the plans. The key box should be
installed approximately 5 1/2 feet above grade.
PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL CONDITIONS
57. The Developer shall comply with the Subdivision Map Act, the City of PW Ongoing
Dublin Subdivision, and Grading Ordinances, the City of Dublin
Public Works Standards and Policies, the most current requirements
of the State Code Title 24 and the American's with Disabilities Act
with regard to accessibility, and all building and fire codes and
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. All public
improvements constructed by the Developer and to be dedicated to
the City are hereby identified as "public works" under Labor Code
section 1771. Accordingly, the Developer, in constructing such
improvements, shall comply with the Prevailing Wage Law (Labor
Code. Sects. 1720 and following).
58. The Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City PW Ongoing
of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents,
officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval
of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning
Commission, City Council, Community Development Director,
Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or
agency of the City related to the project (Tract 8203) to the extent
such actions are brought within the time period required by
Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law;
provided, however, that the Developer's duty to so defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the city's promptly
notifying the Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and
the City's full cooperation in the defense of such actions or
proceedings.
59. General Conditions of Approval. Developer shall comply with the PW Prior to
16
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
following General Conditions of Approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Issuance of
Map 8203—The Green at Park Place. Building
Permits
60. Clarification of Conditions. In the event that there needs to be PW On-going
clarification to the Conditions of Approval, the Director of Community
Development and the City Engineer have the authority to clarify the
intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Developer without going
to a public hearing. The Director of Community Development and
the City Engineer also have the authority to make minor
modifications to these conditions without going to a public hearing in
order for the Developer to fulfill needed improvements or mitigations
resulting from impacts of this project.
61. If there are conflicts between the Vesting Tentative Map approval
and the SDR approval pertaining to mapping or public improvements
the Vesting Tentative Map shall take precedence.
62. Ownership and Maintenance of Improvements. Ownership and PW Final Map and
maintenance of street right-of-ways, common area parcels and open Ongoing
space areas and improvements shall be by the City of Dublin and
The Green at Park Place Homeowner's Association as shown on the
"Ownership and Maintenance Plan" Stage II PD Exhibits, Sheet
C6.01, prepared by Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar, dated June 27, 2014,
except the landscape parkway strip and sidewalk along the project
frontage at Martinelli Way shall be City Owned and HOA maintained,
and except as modified by these Conditions of Approval.
63. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). A PW Improvement
Homeowners' Association(s) and/or Property Owners' Association Plans
shall be formed that covers both the residential and commercial
parcels by recordation of a declaration of Covenants, Conditions,
and Restrictions to govern use and maintenance of the landscape,
decorative pavement and other features within the public right of way
contained in the Agreement for Long Term Encroachments; all open
space and common area landscaping; all stormwater treatment
measures; trail improvements; and the EVAE. Said declaration shall
set forth the Association name, bylaws, rules and regulations. The
CC&Rs shall contain a provision that parking for residential uses
may overflow onto the commercial parcel(s). The parking study
submitted and approved for the project assumed a certain amount of
commercial parking spaces would serve as guest parking for the
residential units. The CC&Rs shall also contain a provision that
prohibits the amendment of those provisions of the CC&Rs
requested by City without the City's approval. The CC&Rs shall
ensure that there is adequate provision for the maintenance, in good
repair and on a regular basis, the landscaping & irrigation, decorative
pavements, median islands, fences, walls, drainage, lighting, signs
and other related improvements. The Developer shall submit a copy
of the CC&R document to the City for review and approval relative to
these conditions of approval.
64. Phased Improvements. Right-of-way dedication and installation of PW First Final Map
public improvements may be done in phases as indicated on the
Tentative Map and Site Development Review, subject to the review
and approval of the City Engineer. With each phased Final Map, the
City Engineer shall identify all improvements necessary to serve and
access the phased lots created. All rights-of-way and
improvements, including utilities and traffic signal installation and
modifications, identified by the City Engineer for construction within
17
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
the boundaries of each phase of the development shall be required
with the Final Map for that phase. In addition, the City Engineer may
require the Developer to perform off-site grading in order to conform
site grading to the adjacent grade outside of the phase proposed for
development.
65. Private street and common area subdivision improvements. PW First Phase of
Common area improvements, private streets, private alleys and all Improvement
other subdivision improvements owned or maintained by the Plans
homeowners' and/or property owners' association(s) are subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer prior to Final Map approval
and shall be included in the Tract Improvement Agreement for each
respective tract. Such improvements include, but are not limited to:
curb & gutter, pavement areas, sidewalks, access ramps &
driveways; enhanced street paving; parking spaces; street lights
(wired underground) and appurtenances; drainage facilities; utilities;
landscape and irrigation facilities; open space landscaping;
stormwater treatment facilities; striping and signage; and fire
hydrants.
66. Private Street Easements. Public Utility Easements (PUE), Sanitary PW First Phase of
Sewer Easements (SSE) and Water Line Easements (WLE) shall be Improvement
established over the entire private street right-of-ways within all Plans
subdivisions. The PUE, SSE and WLE dedication statements on
each Final Map are to recite that the easements are available for,
but not limited to, the installation, access and maintenance of
sanitary and storm sewers, water, electrical and communication
facilities. Project entry monument signs and walls shall not be
located within these easements.
67. Private Street Easements. The Developer shall dedicate PW Final
Emergency Vehicle Access Easements (EVAE) over the clear Acceptance of
pavement width of all private streets and alleys. Easement Project
geometry shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and
Fire Marshall.
68. Intersections: The design of the intersections shall be generally as PW Improvement
shown on the Tentative Map and the Site Development Review. The Plans
Developer shall submit details of typical intersection layout showing
the design for the ramps, sidewalks, lane lines, turn lanes, entry
walls, stop signs, landscape planters, street trees, crosswalk
locations and decorative pavement to be approved by the City
Engineer prior to the submittal of the Improvement Plans. Final
design details shall be subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer.
69. Monuments. Final Maps shall include private street monuments to PW Improvement
be set in all private streets. Private street monuments shall be set at Plans
all intersections and as determined by the City Engineer.
70. Stormwater Source Control. "No Dumping Drains to Bay" storm PW Prior to
drain medallions per City Standard Detail CD-704 shall be placed on Issuance of
all public and private storm drain inlets. Building
Permits
71. Curb Ramps: Curb ramp layouts are not approved at this time. The PW Prior to
number, location and layout of all curb ramps shall be reviewed and Grading
approved by the City Engineer with the Improvement Plans
associated with each Final Map. All pedestrian ramps shall be
designed and constructed to provide direct access to marked or
unmarked crosswalks. Each pedestrian ramp shall be oriented such
18
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
that it is aligned and parallel to the marked or unmarked crosswalk it
is intended to serve. Pedestrian ramps serving more than one
marked or unmarked crosswalk shall not be provided, unless
specifically approved by the City Engineer.
72. Trash Enclosures. The Developer shall construct trash enclosures PW Improvement
at the site. Trash enclosures shall at a minimum meet all Plans
requirements set forth in the Dublin Municipal Code (DMC) Section
7.98, and be approved by the trash collection company for the site
(currently AVI). The Developer shall directly coordinate with AVI for
their review and approval. The Developer shall submit written
verification to the Public Works Department that AVI has reviewed
and approved the trash enclosure size, location and design.
73. Utilities. All new utility service connections, including electrical and PW/PL Prior to
communications, shall be installed underground. Electrical Issuance of
transformers shall be installed in underground vaults within an Building
appropriate utility easement or public service easement. Permits
74. Landscape Plans. Developer shall submit design development PW Final Map
Landscape Plans with the first plan check for the street improvement Approval
plans and final map for each respective tract. The Landscape Plans
shall show details, sections and supplemental information as
necessary for design coordination of the various civil design features
and elements including utility location to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. Complete Landscape Plans shall be concurrently
approved with the Tract Improvement Agreement and Final Map.
75. Street Light and Joint Trench Plans. Streetlight Plans and Joint PW In Conjunction
Trench Plans shall be submitted with the first plan check for the with the Final
street improvement plans and final map for each respective tract. Map or by
The final streetlight plan and joint trench plan shall be completed Separate
prior to Final Map approval for each respective subdivision. Instrument
Prior to
Occupancy
76. Geotechnical Investigation. The Developer shall submit a design PW Improvement
level geotechnical investigation report defining and delineating any Plans
seismic hazard. The report shall be prepared in accordance with
guidelines published by the State of California. The report is subject
to review and approval by a City selected peer review consultant
prior to the acceptance of each Final map. The applicant shall pay
all costs related to the required peer review. The recommendations
of those geotechnical reports shall be incorporated into the project
plans subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
77. Soils Report. The Developer shall submit a detailed soils report PW Improvement
prepared by a qualified engineer, registered with the State of Plans
California. The required report shall include recommendations
regarding pavement sections for all project streets including Arnold
Drive, Martinelli Way, and Hacienda Drive and all internal streets.
Grading operations shall be in accordance with recommendations
contained in the required soils report and grading shall be
supervised by an engineer registered in the State of California to do
such work.
78. Geotechnical Engineer Review and Approval. The Project PW [PL] On-going
Geotechnical Engineer shall be retained to review all final grading
plans and specifications. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall
approve all grading plans prior to City approval and issuance of
grading permits.
19
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
79. Grading. The disposal site and haul truck route for any off-haul dirt PW Prior to
materials shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Working
Engineer prior to the approval the improvement plans or issuance of Within the
a Grading Permit. If the Developer does not own the parcel on Public Right of
which the proposed disposal site is located, the Developer shall Way
provide the City with a Letter of Consent, signed by the current
owner, approving the placement of off-haul material on their parcel.
A grading plan may be required for the placement of the off-haul
material.
80. Underground Obstructions. Prior to demolition, excavation and PW Prior to Start
grading on any portion of the project site, all underground of Public
obstructions (i.e., debris, septic tanks, fuel tanks, barrels, chemical Improvements
waste) shall be identified and removed pursuant to Federal, State
and local regulations and subject to the review and approval by the
City. Excavations shall be properly backfilled using structural fill,
subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.
81. Record Drawings. At the completion of construction, the Developer PW Prior to
shall provide the Public Works Department bond and electronic Release of
(PDF) copies of the civil, joint trench and landscape plans indicating Bonds
all changes that were made during construction.
82. Storm Drain Video. Private and public storm drain pipes shall be PW Improvement
videoed per the City of Dublin requirements. Notes specifying Plans and
procedures shall be included on the improvement plans. prior to
release of
bonds
83. Water Quality Treatment. The provided Stormwater Management PW Improvement
Plan included with the Tentative Map is approved in concept only. Plans
The final Stormwater Management Plan is subject to City Engineer
approval prior to approval of the Tract Improvement Plans. Approval
is subject to the developer providing the necessary plans, details,
and calculations that demonstrate the plan complies with the
standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
Municipal Regional Permit (MRP).
84. Non-City Agencies. The Applicant/Developer will be responsible for PW Improvement
submittals and reviews to obtain the approvals of all participating Plans
non-City agencies. The Alameda County Fire Department and the
Dublin San Ramon Services District shall approve and sign the
Improvement Plans.
85. Hydrology and Hydraulic Calculations. Hydrology and Hydraulic PW Improvement
Calculations shall be provided for the design of the site storm drain Plans
system.
86. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The Various Prior to
Applicant/Developer shall comply with applicable Alameda County Issuance of
Fire, Dublin Public Works Department, Dublin Building Department, Building
Dublin Police Services, Alameda County Flood Control District Zone Permits
7, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, Alameda County
Public and Environmental Health, Dublin San Ramon Services
District and the California Department of Health Services
requirements and standard conditions. Prior to issuance of building
permits or the installation of any improvements related to this
project, the Developer shall supply written statements from each
such agency or department to the Planning Department, indicating
that all applicable conditions required have been or will be met.
20
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
87. Utility Siting Plan. The Applicant/Developer shall provide a final PW, PL Prior to
Utility Siting Plan showing that transformers and service boxes are Issuance of
placed outside of public view where possible and/or screened to the Grading
satisfaction of the Community Development Director and City Permits
Engineer. Applicant/Developer shall place all utility infrastructures
underground including electric, telecommunications, cable TV, and
gas in accordance with standards enforced by the appropriate utility
agency. Utility plans showing the location of all proposed utilities
shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to
installation.
88. Emergency Vehicle Access Easement Dedications. PW, F In Conjunction
Applicant/Developer shall dedicate all needed emergency vehicle with the Final
access easements from each adjacent public street to all fire access Map or by
roads surrounding the site and buildings as defined by Alameda Separate
County Fire Department and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Instrument
Prior to
Occupancy
AGREEMENTS AND BONDS
89. Tract Improvement Agreement. The Developer shall enter into a PW Final Map
Tract Improvement Agreement with the City of Dublin for all public
improvements including any required offsite storm drainage or
roadway improvements that are needed to serve the Tract that have
not been bonded with another Tract Improvement Agreement.
90. Long Term Encroachment Agreement. The Developer shall enter PW Final Map
into an "Agreement for Long Term Encroachments" with the City of
Dublin to allow the HOA and/or POA to maintain the landscape and
decorative features within the public right-of-way including frontage
and median landscaping, decorative pavement and special features
(i.e. walls, portals, benches, etc.) as generally shown on the Site
Development Review exhibits. The Agreement shall identify the
ownership of the special features and maintenance responsibilities.
The Homeowner's and/or Property Owners' Association will be
responsible for maintaining the surface of all decorative pavements
including restoration required as a result of utility repairs.
91. Stormwater Treatment Measures Maintenance Agreement. The PW Final Map
Developer shall enter into a "Stormwater Treatment Measures
Maintenance Agreement" (O&M Agreement) with the City of Dublin
that guarantees the perpetual maintenance obligation for all storm
water treatment measures installed as part of the project. Said
agreement is required pursuant to Provision C.3.h of RWQCB Order
R2-2009-0074 for the issuance of the Alameda Countywide NPDES
municipal storm water permit. Said permit requires the City to
provide verification and assurance that all treatment devices will be
properly operated and maintained. This condition shall not apply if
the water quality treatment measures are maintained by a GHAD or
other public entity.
92. Security. The Developer shall provide Faithful Performance security PW Final Map
(100%), and Labor & Materials security (100%), to guarantee the
tract improvements, approved by the City Engineer, prior to
execution of the Tract Improvement Agreement and approval of the
Final Map.
93. Maintenance Security. Upon acceptance of the improvements, the PW Acceptance of
Faithful Performance security may be replaced with a maintenance Improvements
bond that is 25% of the value of the Faithful Performance security.
21
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
The maintenance bond is returned to the Developer within one year
of City acceptance of the improvements.
FEES
94. The Developer shall pay all applicable fees in effect at the time of PW Zone 7 and
building permit issuance including, but not limited to, Planning fees, Parkland In-
Building fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District fees, Public Lieu Fees due
Facilities fees, Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, prior to Final
Public Works Traffic Impact fees, Alameda County Fire Services Map;
fees, Noise Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu fees, Other Fees
Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) required with
Drainage and Water Connection fees and any other fees except and issuance of
as otherwise noted in the Development Agreement. building
permits
95. Parkland In-Lieu Fees. The Developer shall dedicate parkland or PW Prior to Filing
pay in-lieu fees in the amounts and at the times set forth in City of Final Map
Dublin Resolution No. 60-99, or in any resolution revising these
amounts and as implemented by the Administrative Guidelines
adopted by Resolution 195-99.
PERMITS
96. Encroachment Permit. Developer shall obtain an Encroachment PW Start of Work
Permit from the Public Works Department for all construction activity
within the public right-of-way of any street where the City has
accepted the improvements. The encroachment permit may require
surety for slurry seal and restriping. At the discretion of the City
Engineer an encroachment for work specifically included in an
Improvement Agreement may not be required.
97. Grading/Sitework Permit. Developer shall obtain a PW Start of Work
Grading/Sitework Permit from the Public Works Department for all
grading and private site improvements that serves more than one lot
or residential condominium unit.
98. Other Agency Permits. Developer shall obtain all permits required PW Issuance of
by other agencies including, but not limited to Alameda County Flood Permit/Start of
Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7, California Work
Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional
Water Quality Control Board, Caltrans and provide copies of the
permits to the Public Works Department.
SUBMITTALS
99. All submittals of plans and Final Maps shall comply with the PW Improvement
requirements of the "City of Dublin Public Works Department Plan or Final
Improvement Plan Submittal Requirements", and the "City of Dublin Map
Improvement Plan Review Check List".
100. The Developer will be responsible for submittals and reviews to PW Improvement
obtain the approvals of all participating non-City agencies. The Plans or Final
Alameda County Fire Department and the Dublin San Ramon Map
Services District shall approve and sign the Improvement Plans.
101. Developer shall submit a Geotechnical Report, which includes street PW Grading/Impro
pavement sections and grading recommendations. vement Plans
or Final Map
102. Developer shall provide the Public Works Department a PDF file and PW Acceptance of
digital vectorized file of the "master" CAD files for the project when Improvements
the Final Map has been approved. Digital raster copies are not and Release
acceptable. The digital vectorized files shall be in AutoCAD 14 or of Bonds
higher drawing format. Drawing units shall be decimal with the
22
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
precision of the Final Map. All objects and entities in layers shall be
colored by layer and named in English. All submitted drawings shall
use the Global Coordinate System of USA, California, NAD 83
California State Plane, Zone III, and U.S. foot.
FINAL MAP
103. All Final Maps shall be substantially in accordance with the Tentative PW Approval of
Maps approved with this application, unless otherwise modified by Final Map
these conditions. Multiple final maps may be filed in phases,
provided that each phase is consistent with the tentative map, that
phasing progresses in an orderly and logical manner and adequate
infrastructure is installed with each phase to serve that phase as a
stand-alone project that is not dependent upon future phasing for
infrastructure.
104. All rights-of-way and easement dedications required by the Vesting PW Approval of
Tentative Map shall be shown on the Final Map. Final Map
105. Any phasing of the final mapping or improvements of a Vesting PW Approval of
Tentative Map is subject to the approval and conditions of the City Final Map
Engineer.
106. Street names shall be assigned to each public/private street PW Approval of
pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 7.08. The approved street Final Map
names shall be indicated on the Final Map.
107. All Final Maps shall include street monuments to be set in all public PW Monuments to
streets. be shown on
Final Map and
installed prior
to acceptance
of
Improvements
EASEMENTS
108. The Developer shall obtain abandonment from all applicable public PW Approval of
agencies of existing easements and right of ways that will no longer Improvement
be used. Plans and
Final Map
109. The Developer shall acquire easements, and/or obtain rights-of-entry PW Approval of
from the adjacent property owners for any improvements on their Improvement
property. The easements and/or rights-of-entry shall be in writing Plans and
and copies furnished to the City Engineer. Final Map
GRADING
110. The Grading Plan shall be in conformance with the PW Approval of
recommendations of the Geotechnical Report, the approved Grading Plans
Tentative Map and/or Site Development Review, and the City design or Issuance of
standards & ordinances. In case of conflict between the soil Grading
engineer's recommendations and City ordinances, the City Engineer Permit.
shall determine which shall apply.
111. A detailed Erosion Control Plan shall be included with the Grading PW Approval of
Plan approval. The plan shall include detailed design, location, and Grading Plans
maintenance criteria of all erosion and sedimentation control or Issuance of
measures. Grading
Permit.
112. Tiebacks or structural fabric for retaining walls shall not cross PW Approval of
property lines, or shall be located a minimum of 2' below the finished Grading Plans
grade of the upper lot. or Issuance of
23
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
Grading
Permit.
113. Bank slopes along public streets shall be no steeper than 3:1. The PW Approval of
toe of any slope along public streets shall be one foot back of Grading Plans
walkway. The top of any slope along public streets shall be three or Issuance of
feet back of walkway. Minor exception may be made in the above Grading
slope design criteria to meet unforeseen design constraints submit to Permits, and
the approval of the City Engineer. Ongoing
IMPROVEMENTS
114. The public improvements shall be constructed generally as shown PW Approval of
on the Vesting Tentative Map and/or Site Development Review. Grading/Impro
However, the approval of the Tentative Map and/or Site vement Plans
Development Review is not an approval of the specific design of the or issuance of
drainage, sanitary sewer, water, and street improvements. grading
permits.
115. All public improvements shall conform to the City of Dublin Standard PW Approval of
Plans and design requirements and as approved by the City Grading/Impro
Engineer. vement Plans
or Start of
Construction.
116. Martinelli Way. The Developer shall dedicate two feet (2') of right- PW Final Map
of-way and install street improvements along the project's Martinelli
Way frontage. Required street improvements include, but are not
limited to: removal of existing asphalt concrete sidewalk;
construction of new ten foot (10') wide Class I pedestrian/bike trail
and four foot (4') wide (inclusive of curb) landscape strip; driveways;
curb ramps; street trees; irrigation and relocation of utilities.
Developer shall also install root barriers adjacent to both sidewalk
and back of curb within landscape strip.
117. Arnold Road — North of Project Driveway. The Developer shall PW Final Map
construct frontage improvements along Arnold Road, north of the
project driveway, such that the curb-to-median curb width is twenty
six feet (26') and include a twelve foot (12') travel lane, six foot (6)
bike lane and eight foot (8') parking lane. The Developer shall also
install a five foot (5') (inclusive of curb width) monolithic sidewalk.
Required roadway improvements on Arnold Road north of the
Project driveway shall include, but are not limited to: curb, gutter,
sidewalk, curb ramps, drainage structures and relocation of utilities.
118. Arnold Road — North of Project Driveway. Approximately 12-18 PW Final Map
feet of excess right-of-way behind the new back-of-walk shall be
vacated with the first Final Map for the project in accordance with
Subdivision Map Act Sections 66434(g) and 66436. The new right-
of-way line shall coincide with the new back-of-walk.
119. Arnold Road — South of Project Driveway. The Developer shall PW Final Map
dedicate right-of-way and construct frontage improvements along
Arnold Road, south of the project driveway, such that the curb-to-
median curb width is twenty six feet (26') and include a twelve foot
(12') travel lane, six foot (6) bike lane and eight foot (8') parking
lane. The Developer shall also install a five foot (5') (inclusive of
curb width) monolithic sidewalk.
120. Arnold Road cul-de-sac. The Developer shall dedicate and secure PW First Final Map
the dedication of right-of-way and install complete roadway and requiring
24
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
utility improvements for the construction of a new cul-de-sac at the frontage
current southern terminus of Arnold Road near the southwest corner improvement
of the project. The Developer shall facilitate and secure the on Arnold
dedication of right-of-way required on the adjacent Alameda County Road
Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA) parcel necessary for the
construction of the new cul-de-sac. Dedication of the required right-
of-way by ACSPA shall be recorded prior to approval of the First
Final Map that requires frontage improvements on Arnold Road.
121. Arnold Road cul-de-sac. Required roadway and utility PW First Final Map
improvements for the Arnold Road cul-de-sac shall include, but are requiring
not limited to: removal/reconstruction of existing median nose, frontage
removal of existing traffic islands, installation of pavement, curb, improvement
gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, driveways, drainage structures, utilities, on Arnold
street lights, and fire hydrants. The minimum curb-to-curb diameter Road
for the cul-de-sac shall be ninety six feet (96'). Final design of cul-
de-sac and connection to Alta Mirano Avenue shall be subject to
review and approval of the Fire Marshall and the City Engineer.
122. Arnold Road cul-de-sac. The Developer shall use diligent PW First Final Map
commercially reasonable efforts to obtain, at its cost, any right-of- requiring
way, access rights and other consents and approvals from affected frontage
property owners necessary to complete improvements for the Arnold improvement
Road cul-de-sac; provided, however, that if the Developer is unable, on Arnold
through the use of diligent commercially reasonable efforts, to obtain Road
the necessary right-of-way, access rights and other consents and
approvals for any portion of the Arnold Road cul-de-sac (an
"Unacquired Portion") by the date that is six months before the date
construction is scheduled to Commence, the Developer shall so
notify the City in writing, and either:
a. City shall procure the necessary right-of-way, access rights and
other consents and approvals for the applicable Unacquired
Portion and shall seek to gain possession of the Unacquired
Portion within a timeframe that will not delay Developer's
schedule. Developer's obligation to Commence Construction
with respect to the applicable Unacquired Portion shall be tolled
until City has procured the necessary right-of-way, access rights
and other consents and approvals; or
b. If City has not procured the necessary right-of-way, access rights
and other consents and approvals within two years after the date
Construction Commenced on the Arnold Road cul-de-sac,
Developer shall be released from its obligations under these
Conditions of Approval and any of the other approvals with
respect to the construction of the cul-de-sac. The Developer
shall then be responsible for construction of the alternate
`hammerhead' turnaround as shown on the Vesting Tentative
Map.
123. Public streets shall be at a minimum 1% slope with minimum gutter PW Approval of
flow of 0.7% around bumpouts. Private streets and alleys shall be at Grading/Impro
minimum 0.5% slope. vement Plans
or Start of
Construction.
Ongoing
124. Curb Returns on arterial and collector streets shall be 40-foot radius, PW Approval of
25
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
all internal public streets curb returns shall be minimum 30-foot Grading/Impro
radius (36-foot with bump outs) and private streets/alleys shall be a vement Plans
minimum 20-foot radius, or as approved by the City Engineer. Curb or Start of
ramp locations and design shall conform to the most current Title 24 Construction.
and Americans with Disabilities Act requirements and as approved Ongoing
by the City Traffic Engineer.
125. All landscaping and any architectural structure shall be no more than PW Improvement
30 inches tall inside the Visibility zone established by a Safe Plans
Stopping Sight Distance at the project entrances on Martinelli Way
and Arnold Road. The Safe Stopping Sight Distance shall be based
on the 35 MPH on Martinelli Way and 30 MPH on Arnold Road. The
sight distances shall be prepared by a Traffic Engineer and shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
126. Decorative pavers, stamped concrete or other similar non-standard PW Approval of
pavement sections shall not be installed on any public right of way, Grading/Impro
unless the design and location is reviewed and approved by the City vement Plans
Engineer. In general, decorative pavement (pavers, or similar non- or Start of
standard pavement sections) shall not be installed over traffic Construction.
detector loops, inside crosswalks or within thirty feet (30') of any Ongoing
crosswalk or STOP bar. Decorative pavements shall not interfere
with the placement of traffic control devices, including pavement
markings. Maintenance costs of the decorative paving shall be the
responsibility of the Homeowners Association.
127. Median Landscaping. Median landscaping at the main entrance to PW Improvement
the site from Martinelli Way shall not exceed maximum height for Plans and
sight distance requirements. ongoing
128. Utility Design. All utility design including but not limited to storm PW Geotechnical
drain and storm water treatment measures shall be located as not to Report and
compromise the integrity of the building foundations for Improvement
excavation/maintenance of utility is needed. Geotechnical Engineer Plans
Report shall address the clearance required.
129. Bike Lanes on Arnold Drive. Bike Lanes shall be provided along PW Improvement
the frontage of the project on Arnold Road. Bike lane design shall be Plans
reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
130. TDM Plan. Developer shall prepare a Transportation Demand PW Prior to
Management Plan (TDM) Plan as per the SEIR mitigations. The Approval of
TDM plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Final Map
Engineer prior to implementation and shall include additional TDM
measures for residential development beyond those that are noted in
the SEIR.
131. Class 1 Trail. Developer shall construct a Class 1 Trail at least 10 PW Improvement
feet wide with adequate clearances from the intersection of Martinelli Plans
Way and Hacienda Drive, south along the Hacienda Drive frontage
and west along the southern property frontage, to the southern
terminus of Arnold Drive to connect to the trail along Altamirano
Way, and as approved by the City Engineer.
132. Traffic Signal and Median Modifications. Developer shall modify PW Improvement
traffic signal at the intersection of Martinelli Way and project Plans
driveway, and at Martinelli Way and Hacienda Drive. The medians
along Martinelli Way and Hacienda Drive shall be modified to
accommodate safe turning movements and overall traffic circulation.
The changes to the intersection at Martineli Way and Hacienda Drive
26
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
will trigger significant changes to the signal operations along
Hacienda Drive. Developer shall pay for any needed operational
changes including traffic consultant costs for updating signal
coordination plans, and field implementation of operational changes
at the intersection. Developer shall submit any traffic signal
operational changes to the City Traffic Engineer for review and
approval prior to field implementation. Developer shall install a traffic
monitoring camera and associated equipment at the intersection of
Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way.
133. Trash Capture. The project Stormwater Management Plan shall PW Improvement
incorporate full trash capture measures such as screens, filters or Plans
CDS/Vortex units to address the requirements of Provision C.10 of
the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Municipal
Regional Permit (MRP) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
134. Stormwater Treatment. Developer shall incorporate source control PW Improvement
measures, stormwater treatment measures, and trash capture Plans
measures into the site design as required pursuant to Provision C.3
and C.10 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit,
Order No. R2-2009-0074, CAS612008.
135. The Developer shall install all traffic signs and pavement marking as PW Occupancy of
required by the City Engineer. Units or
Acceptance of
Improvements
136. Street light standards and luminaries shall be designed and installed PW Occupancy of
per approval of the City Engineer. The maximum voltage drop for Units or
streetlights is 5%. Acceptance of
Improvements
137. The Developer shall construct bus stops and shelters at the PW Occupancy of
locations designated and approved by the LAVTA and the City Units or
Engineer. The Developer shall pay the cost of procuring and Acceptance of
installing these improvements. Bus stops shall have a bus pull-out Improvements
with an entry taper of 40 feet, exit taper of 80 feet and the bus
landing area 80 feet long and 12 feet deep. All bus stops shall have
the electricity connection for any future upgrades to electronic signs
as per LAVTA guidelines and/or standards.
138. Developer shall construct all potable and recycled water and sanitary PW Occupancy of
sewer facilities required to serve the project in accordance with Units or
DSRSD master plans, standards, specifications and requirements. Acceptance of
Improvements
139. Fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the Alameda County Fire PW Occupancy of
Department. A raised reflector blue traffic marker shall be installed in Units or
the street opposite each hydrant. Acceptance of
Improvements
140. The Developer shall furnish and install street name signs for the PW Occupancy of
project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Units or
Acceptance of
Improvements
141. Developer shall construct gas, electric, cable TV and communication PW Occupancy of
improvements within the fronting streets and as necessary to serve Units or
the project and the future adjacent parcels as approved by the City Acceptance of
Engineer and the various Public Utility agencies. Improvements
142. All electrical, gas, telephone, and Cable TV utilities, shall be PW Occupancy of
27
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
underground in accordance with the City policies and ordinances. Units or
All utilities shall be located and provided within public utility Acceptance of
easements and sized to meet utility company standards. Improvements
143. All utility vaults, boxes and structures, unless specifically approved PW Occupancy of
otherwise by the City Engineer, shall be underground and placed in Units or
landscape areas and screened from public view. Prior to Joint Acceptance of
Trench Plan approval, landscape drawings shall be submitted to the Improvements
City showing the location of all utility vaults, boxes and structures
and adjacent landscape features and plantings. The Joint Trench
Plans shall be signed by the City Engineer prior to construction of
the joint trench improvements.
CONSTRUCTION
144. Construction Hours. Standard construction and grading hours PW On-going as
shall be limited to weekdays (Monday through Friday) and non-City needed
holidays between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. The
Developer may request reasonable modifications to such determined
days and hours, taking into account the seasons, impacts on
neighboring properties, and other appropriate factors, by submitting
a request form to the City Engineer. For work on Saturdays, said
request shall be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. the prior
Wednesday. Overtime inspection rates will apply for all after-hours,
Saturday, and/or holiday work.
145. Construction Trash/Debris. Measures shall be taken to contain all PW, B, PL Prior to
construction related trash, debris, and materials on-site until disposal Construction
off-site can be arranged. The Applicant/Developer shall keep the
adjoining public streets and properties free and clean of project dirt,
mud, and materials during the construction period. The Developer
shall be responsible for corrective measures at no expense to the
City of Dublin.
146. Construction Fencing. The use of any temporary construction PL, PW, B Prior to
fencing shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Issuance of
Engineer and the Building Official. Building
Permits
147. Erosion Control during Construction. Applicant/Developer shall PW Ongoing as
include an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan with the Grading and needed
Improvement plans for review and approval by the City Engineer.
Said plan shall be designed, implemented, and continually
maintained pursuant to the City's NPDES permit between October
1St and April 15th or beyond these dates if dictated by rainy weather,
or as otherwise directed by the City Engineer. The Developer will be
responsible for maintaining erosion and sediment control measures
for one year following the City's acceptance of the subdivision
improvements.
148. If archaeological materials are encountered during construction, PW Ongoing as
construction within 100 feet of these materials shall be halted until a needed
professional Archaeologist who is certified by the Society of
California Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of Professional
Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the
significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures.
149. Developer shall prepare a construction noise management plan that PW Start of
identifies measures to be taken to minimize construction noise on Construction,
surrounding developed properties. The plan shall include hours of Implementatio
construction operation, use of mufflers on construction equipment, n, and
28
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
speed limit for construction traffic, haul routes and identify a noise Ongoing as
monitor. Specific noise management measures shall be provided needed
prior to project construction.
150. Developer shall prepare a plan for construction traffic interface with PW Start of
public traffic on any existing public street. Construction traffic and Construction,
parking may be subject to specific requirements by the City Implementatio
Engineer. n, and
Ongoing as
needed
151. The Developer shall be responsible for controlling any rodent, PW Ongoing
mosquito, or other pest problem due to construction activities.
152. The Developer shall be responsible for watering or other dust- PW Ongoing
palliative measures to control dust as conditions warrant or as
directed by the City Engineer.
153. The Developer shall provide the Public Works Department with a PW Issuance of
letter from a registered civil engineer or surveyor stating that the Building
building pads have been graded to within 0.1 feet of the grades Permits or
shown on the approved Grading Plans, and that the top & toe of Acceptance of
banks and retaining walls are at the locations shown on the Improvements
approved Grading Plans.
STORM WATER QUALITY (NPDES)
154. Prior to any clearing or grading, the Developer shall provide the City PW Start of any
evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been sent to the California construction
State Water Resources Control Board per the requirements of the activities
NPDES. A copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) shall be provided to the Public Works Department and be
kept at the construction site.
155. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall identify PW SWPPP to be
the Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the project prepared prior
construction activities. The SWPPP shall include the erosion control to approval of
measures in accordance with the regulations outlined in the most improvement
current version of the ABAG Erosion and Sediment Control plans,
Handbook or State Construction Best Management Practices implementatio
Handbook. The Developer is responsible for ensuring that all n prior to start
contractors implement all storm water pollution prevention measures of construction
in the SWPPP. and ongoing
as needed
156. Prior to issuance of any building permit, complete improvement DSRSD Issuance of
plans shall be submitted to DSRSD that conform to the requirements Building
of the Dublin San Ramon Services District Code, the DSRSD Permits
"Standard Procedures, Specifications and Drawings for Design and
Installation of Water and Wastewater Facilities", all applicable
DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies.
157. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient capacity to DSRSD Issuance of
accommodate future flow demands in addition to each development Improvement
project's demand. Layout and sizing of mains shall be in Plans
conformance with DSRSD utility master planning.
158. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD's DSRSD Issuance of
existing sanitary sewer system. Pumping of sewage is discouraged Improvement
and may only be allowed under extreme circumstances following a Plans
case by case review with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will
require specific review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary
29
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
design reports, design criteria, and final plans and specifications.
The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth
20 year maintenance costs as well as other conditions within a
separate agreement with the applicant for any project that requires a
pumping station.
159. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for Tracts or DSRSD Issuance of
Commercial Developments shall be designed to be looped or Improvement
interconnected to avoid dead end sections in accordance with Plans
requirements of the DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound
engineering practice.
160. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer lines to be located in DSRSD Issuance of
public streets rather than in off-street locations to the fullest extent Improvement
possible. If unavoidable, then public sewer or water easements Plans
must be established over the alignment of each public sewer or
water line in an off-street or private street location to provide access
for future maintenance and/or replacement.
161. Prior to approval by the City of a grading permit or a site DSRSD Issuance of
development permit, the locations and widths of all proposed Improvement
easement dedications for water and sewer lines shall be submitted Plans
to and approved by DSRSD.
162. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be by separate DSRSD Issuance of
instrument irrevocably offered to DSRSD or by offer of dedication on Improvement
the Final Map. Plans
163. Prior to approval by the City for Recordation, the Final Map shall be DSRSD Issuance of
submitted to and approved by DSRSD for easement locations, Improvement
widths, and restrictions. Plans
164. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or Construction DSRSD Issuance of
Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, whichever comes Building
first, all utility connection fees including DSRSD and Zone 7, plan Permits
checking fees, inspection fees, connection fees, and fees associated
with a wastewater discharge permit shall be paid to DSRSD in
accordance with the rates and schedules established in the DSRSD
Code.
165. No sewer line or waterline construction shall be permitted unless the DSRSD Issuance of
proper utility construction permit has been issued by DSRSD. A Improvement
construction permit will only be issued after all of the items in the Plans
condition immediately above have been satisfied.
166. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or Construction DSRSD Issuance of
Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, whichever comes Building
first, all improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall be signed by Permits
the District Engineer. Each drawing of improvement plans shall
contain a signature block for the District Engineer indicating approval
of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown. Prior to approval by
the District Engineer, the applicant shall pay all required DSRSD
fees, and provide an engineer's estimate of construction costs for
the sewer and water systems, a performance bond, a one-year
maintenance bond, and a comprehensive general liability insurance
policy in the amounts and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The
applicant shall allow at least 15 working days for final improvement
drawing review by DSRSD before signature by the District Engineer.
167. The applicant shall hold DSRSD, its Board of Directors, DSRSD Issuance of
commissions, employees, and agents of DSRSD harmless and Building
indemnify and defend the same from any litigation, claims, or fines Permits
30
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
resulting from the construction and completion of the project.
168. Improvement plans shall include recycled water improvements as DSRSD Issuance of
required by DSRSD. Services for landscape irrigation shall connect Improvement
to recycled water mains. Applicant must obtain a copy of the DSRSD Plans
Recycled Water Use Guidelines and conform to the requirements
therein.
169. Above ground backflow prevention devices/double detector check DSRSD Issuance of
valves shall be installed on fire protection systems connected to the Improvement
DSRSD water main. The applicant shall collaborate with the Fire Plans
Department and with DSRSD to size and configure its fire system.
The applicant shall minimize the number of backflow prevention
devices/double detector check valves installed on its fire protection
system. The applicant shall minimize the visual impact of the
backflow prevention devices/double detector check valves through
strategic placement and landscaping.
170. A utility plan showing routing of improvements and demolition of DSRSD Issuance of
existing utilities (if any). Zone 7 Turnout and DSRSD Fluoride Improvement
Storage Facility shall be shown on final plans. Plans
171. DSRSD has major water infrastructure in the area in the form of DSRSD Ongoing
pipelines going from DSRSD Turnout 4 to customers. Applicant
shall ensure that the DSRSD infrastructure is not damaged or
compromised during the construction of this project.
172. DSRSD maintains radio communications links between Turnout 4 DSRSD Occupancy of
and Pump Station 10A and Reservoir 10A for transmission of first tenant
SCADA information. Applicant plans will be reviewed to ensure the space
communications links will remain unbroken Applicant, DSRSD and
City of Dublin will coordinate to be sure this DSRSD communications
link will remain operative and reliable after construction.
173. Development plans will not be approved until landscape plans are DSRSD Issuance of
submitted and approved. Sitework
Permit
174. Grading for construction shall be done with recycled water. DSRSD Ongoing
175. Temporary potable irrigation meters in areas with recycled water DSRSD Ongoing
service shall only be allowed for cross-connection and coverage
testing for a maximum of 14 calendar days.
176. Where the narrow width of a proposed alley or cul-de-sac would DSRSD Issuance of
make the standard spacing between water mains and sewer mains Sitework
unworkable, the developer must request an exemption from Permit
DSRSD's standard spacing requirements between mains. Such an
exemption may be granted, but only if:
1. The spacing between the sewer and water main is the maximum
width possible using the proposed width of the alley.
2. In no case is the spacing between the sewer and water main less
than five (5) feet measured edge to edge.
3. The vertical separation between the water line and the sewer line
is at least one (1) foot with the sewer line deeper than the water line.
4. The material for the water line is Class 200 pressure rated PVC
water pipe (DR 14 per AWWA C900-97 & C905-97) and the material
for the sewer main is PVC pipe using bell and spigot joints using
rubber gaskets meeting the requirements of ASTM D3034, SDR26,
cell classification 12454-B or 12454-C.
Developer should be aware that the exemption is not guaranteed to
31
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
be granted, but may be granted if all special provisions for the
narrow alleyway are followed.
177. The project is located within the District Recycled Water Use Zone DSRSD Issuance of
(Ord. 301), which calls for installation of recycled water irrigation Sitework
systems to allow for the future use of recycled water for approved Permit
landscape irrigation demands. Recycled water will be available as
described in the DSRSD Water Master Plan Update, December
2005. Unless specifically exempted by the District Engineer,
compliance with Ordinance 301, as may be amended or
superseded, is required. Applicant must submit landscape irrigation
plans to DSRSD. All irrigation facilities shall be in compliance with
District's "Recycled Water Use Guidelines" and Dept. of Health
Services requirements for recycled water irrigation design.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2015 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:IPk20131PLPA-2013-00013 The Green GPA-SPA-PDIPC 08.26.141Att 4-SDR Reso.docx
32
ORDINANCE NO. XX - 15
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND
STOCKBRIDGE/BHV EMERALD PLACE LAND COMPANY LLC RELATING TO
THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT
PLPA-2013-00013
(APNS 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-00, 986-0033-006-00)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. RECITALS
A. A request has been made by Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place Land Company
LLC ("Applicant") to enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Dublin for the property
known as The Green Mixed Use Project site, which includes properties identified by Assessor
Parcel Numbers 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-00, and 986-0033-006-00, encompassing
approximately 27.5 acres; and
B. The Applicant is proposing to obtain approvals for a development project that
includes the construction of six residential neighborhoods with 372 units in multiple buildings
and a complementary commercial district with approximately 37,000 square feet of future retail
and restaurant buildings with associated outdoor seating areas and a full range of site
improvements; and
C. The project is the subject of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR),
State Clearinghouse No. 2013072032. On , the City Council approved
Resolution -15, certifying the Final SEIR for the project, and adopting CEQA findings, a
Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for
the Project. The Development Agreement was part of the Project analyzed in the SEIR and the
impacts of the activities under the Development Agreement were analyzed in the SEIR; and
D. The Applicant has applied for a Development Agreement which will vest the
Project Approvals.
E. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Development
Agreement on August 26, 2014, for which public notice was given by law; and
F. The Planning Commission made its recommendation to the City Council for
approval of the Development Agreement by Resolution.
G. A public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement was held before the
City Council on , 2015 for which public notice was given as provided by law.
H. The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning
Commission, including the Planning Commission's reasons for its recommendation, the Agenda
Statement, all comments received in writing, and all testimony received at the public hearing.
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 Green Mixed Use
Project SEIR; (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 Development Agreement incorporates the objectives
policies, general land uses and programs in the General Plan and Specific Plan (as amended);
and (b) the project is consistent with the fiscal policies of the General Plan and Specific Plan
with respect to the provision of infrastructure and public services.
2. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the
regulations prescribed for, the land use districts in which the real property is located because
the Development Agreement does not amend the uses or regulations in the applicable land use
district.
3. The Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general
welfare, and good land use policies in that the Developer's project will implement land use
guidelines set forth in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the General Plan as articulated in
Resolution No. -15, amending the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, adopted by the City
Council on , 2015.
4. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and
general welfare in that the Developer's proposed project will proceed in accordance with all the
programs and policies of the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and future Project
Approvals and Conditions of Approval.
5. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of
property or the preservation of property values in that the project will be consistent with the
General Plan (as amended), the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (as amended), and future Project
Approvals.
6. The Development Agreement 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.
2
Section 4. RECORDATION
Within ten (10) days after the Development Agreement takes effect and 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
2015 by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:IPk20131PLPA-2013-00013 The Green GPA-SPA-PDICC 09.16.141Attxx-DA Ord.docx
3
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
CITY OF DUBLIN
When Recorded Mail To:
City Clerk
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Fee Waived per GC 27383
Space above this line for Recorder's use
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AND
STOCKBRIDGEBHV EMERALD PLACE LAND COMPANY, LLC
FOR "THE GREEN" PROJECT
1
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 BHV/STOCKBRIDGE
EMERALD PLACE LAND COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, its
successors and assigns ("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 27.5 acres of land at the south side of Martinelli Way between Hacienda Drive to
the east and Arnold Drive to the west, (APNs 986-0033-004-00; 986-0033-005-02 and 986-003-
006-00) 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 proposed
project (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 and Stage 2 Development Plan
and Rezoning Ordinance (Ordinance No. , adopted by the City Council on
, 2014), Site Development Review (for the commercial portion or the project and the
residential portion of the project as separate applications) and a Vesting Tentative Map 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 Project includes construction of a mixed-use residential and commercial
project including up to 40,000 gross square feet of retail and restaurant floor area and up to 400
residential dwelling units on the site, landscaped plazas and open spaces as well as grading of the
site, extension of utilities, and related improvements.
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 as
amended 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 4 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.
L In 2004, the City approved amendments to the General plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan to change the land use designation on the 27.5 acre site from Campus Office to
general Commercial that would have allowed an IKEA furniture store and other commercial
uses on the site. The City certified a Supplemental EIR(the "IKEA EIR") SCH 4 2003092076
to assess the impacts of that land use change, and that SEIR was certified on March 16, 2004 by
City Council Resolution No. 44-04. In 2008, the City approved a Stage 2 Planned
Development Rezoning, Site Development review and a Development Agreement for a 305,000
square foot shopping center on the site. An Addendum was adopted along with the approval of
the Stage 1 Planned Development Rezoning in 2007. The Addendum concluded that the
potentially significant impacts of developing the site had been adequately described and
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the IKEA EIR and that no new or more severe
significant impacts would result from future development of the site.
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 a Supplemental EIR, dated
(Resolution. No. adopted by the City Council on ), describing the
Project and identifying new impacts of the Project, some of which could not be mitigated to a
less than significant level, as well as new mitigation measures for the proposed Project in
addition to those addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the IKEA EIR. Upon approval of
the Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment, Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan and PD Rezoning, Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings only),
Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and this Development Agreement, the City Council
adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring program and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
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:
3
AGREEMENT
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.
The Property that is the subject of this Agreement is described in Exhibit A attached
hereto ("Property").
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 Developer joint venturers or
partners.
4. EFFECTIVE DATE, TERM, COMMUNITY BENEFIT CONTRIBUTION, AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING OBLIGATIONS
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.
4.3 Optional Extension. Prior to the termination of this Development Agreement, as
provided in Section 4.2, Developer may extend the term of the Development Agreement. To do
so, Developer shall give City written notice at least ninety (90) days prior to the termination of
the date of the Development Agreement. At the time Developer provides such notice, Developer
shall make a contribution to City in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000).
Upon receipt of the notice and the contribution, the City Manager shall approve the extension
and shall notify the Developer in writing that the term of the Development Agreement has been
automatically extended for an additional one-year period, commencing on the date the
Development Agreement would otherwise have terminated. The Developer may exercise its
option to extend the Development Agreement no more than five (5) times, for a maximum total
term of the Development Agreement of ten years. The total contribution for maximum extension
of five (5) years will be One Million Dollars ($1,000,000).
4.4 Termination on Sale of Individual Lots. Notwithstanding the foregoing Sections
4.2 and 4.3, 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 (where the lease is for a period longer than one (1)
year) to a member of the public or any other ultimate user. City shall cooperate with Developer,
4
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 afore described lots) may submit to
confirm the termination of this Agreement as to any such lot.
4.5 Community Benefit Contribution and Affordable Housing. The Developer shall
provide a Community Benefit Payment in accordance with Exhibit B (the "Community Benefit
Contribution Schedule") attached hereto and made a part hereof. The Developer shall meet its
obligations for the provision of affordable housing under the Dublin Municipal Code in
accordance with the provisions of Exhibit C (the "Affordable Housing Schedule") attached
hereto and made a part hereof. The provisions of this Section 4.5 survive the expiration of this
Agreement. The provisions Exhibit B, Community Benefits, shall survive the termination of this
Agreement.
4.6 Term of Map and Project Approvals. The term of any Project Approvals and
(pursuant to California Government Code Section 66452.6(a)), the term of any vesting tentative
map described above shall automatically be extended until the later of the following: (1) the end
of the term of this Agreement; or(2)the end of the term or life of such vesting tentative map
otherwise given pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act or local regulation not in conflict with the
Subdivision Map Act.
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, such as to Site Development
Review or Tentative Map project approvals, once effective, shall become part of the law
Developer is vested into without an additional amendment of this Agreement.
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 location and maintenance of
on-site and off-site improvements, parking standards, procedures for and standards governing
building design, 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 Engineering and Construction. Unless otherwise expressly
provided in Paragraph 5 of this Agreement, the ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and
official policies governing engineering, improvement and construction standards and
specifications applicable to the Project shall be those in force and effect at the time of the
5
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, relating to Building Standards, in effect at the
time of approval of the appropriate building, grading, encroachment or other construction
permits for the Project.
5.6 Phasing, Timing. The parties agree that the Project will generally be constructed
in phases, in accordance with Exhibit D ("Phasing Plan"), attached hereto and made a part
hereof. Subsequently Enacted Rules and Regulations. The parties agree that pursuant to
California Government Code Section 66456.1, Developer may file multiple final maps.
5.7 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 only
if. (a) the application of such new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or
official policies would not prevent, or otherwise require any reduction in the square footage or
total number or location of buildings, residential units, other improvements or parking spaces,
change or limit the land uses or limit the density or intensity of the Project or any part thereof or
impose a substantial financial burden on, or materially delay development of the Property, all as
contemplated by this Agreement and the Project Approvals and (b) if such ordinances,
resolutions, rules, regulations, or official policies have general applicability. Consistent with
Government Code Section 66498.2 (applicable to vesting tentative maps), in the event City
subsequently changes its ordinances, policies or standards during the term of this Agreement,
such changed ordinances, policies, or standards shall automatically apply to secure the vested
right for Developer to proceed with the Project under such changes, provided Developer notifies
City in writing that it elects to apply such changes and clearly specifies such changes to the
City's ordinances, policies and standards.
5.8 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.
5.9 Moratorium Shall Not Apply. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained herein, in the event an ordinance, resolution or other measure is enacted, whether by
action of the City, by initiative, referendum or otherwise, that imposes a building moratorium, a
limit on the rate of development or a voter-approval requirement which affects the Project on all
or any part of the Property, the City agrees that such ordinance, resolution or other measure shall
6
not apply to the Project, the Property, this Agreement or the Project Approvals unless the
building moratorium is imposed as part of a declaration of a local emergency or state of
emergency as defined in Government Code § 8558.
6. SUBSEQUENTLY ENACTED OR REVISED FEES, ASSESSMENTS AND
TAXES.
6.1 Impact Fees, Exactions Dedications. City and Developer agree that this
Agreement does not limit the City's discretion to impose or require payment of any fees in
connection with the development of the Project for purposes of mitigating environmental and
other impacts of the Project, the dedication of any land, or the construction of any public
improvement or facilities. City agrees, however, that it will not impose any such fees other than
those that were already in effect on the Effective Date. Furthermore, Developer agrees that,
notwithstanding any rights it may obtain under its vesting tentative map, the City may increase
any such existing fees applicable to the Project, payment of which are typically required at
building permit or final map approval, even if those fees or charges were increased after the
Effective Date or after Developer's application for the vesting tentative map was deemed
complete.
6.2 Revised Application Fees. Any existing application, processing and inspection
fees that are revised during the term of this Agreement shall apply to the Project provided that
(1) such fees have general applicability; (2) the application of such fees to the Property is
prospective only; and (3) the application of such fees would not prevent, impose a substantial
financial burden on, or materially delay development in accordance with this Agreement.
6.3 New Taxes. Any subsequently enacted city-wide taxes shall apply to the Project
provided that: (1) the application of such taxes to the Property is prospective; and (2) the
application of such taxes would not prevent development in accordance with this Agreement.
7. AMENDMENT OR CANCELLATION.
7.1 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.
7.2 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.
7.3 Insubstantial Amendments. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding
Paragraph 7.2, 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
7
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.
7.4 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. Any fees paid pursuant
to this Agreement prior to the date of cancellation shall be retained by the City.
8. ANNUAL REVIEW.
8.1 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.
8.2 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.
8.3 Staff Reports. To the extent practical, the City shall deposit via electronic mail to
Developer a copy of all staff reports, and related exhibits concerning contract performance at
least three (3) days prior to any annual review.
8.4 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.
9. DEFAULT.
9.1 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 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. The foregoing
notwithstanding, the Parties agree that the remedy of termination may only be exercised in the
event of a material breach of this Agreement after notice and a public hearing as set forth in
Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.56; and provided further, that a default by any Transferee
approved by the City shall not be deemed a default by Developer or any other Transferee
hereunder.
9.2 Notice and Cure. Upon the occurrence of an event of default by either party, the
non-defaulting 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 non-defaulting party may then commence any legal or equitable action to enforce its
8
rights under this Agreement;provided, however, that, if the default cannot be cured within such
thirty (30) day period, the non-defaulting 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.
9.3 No Damages Against CitX. 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.
10. 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.
11. MORTGAGEE PROTECTION: CERTAIN RIGHTS OF CURE.
11.1 Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to any lien
placed upon the Property, or any portion thereof after the date of recording this Agreement,
including the lien for any deed of trust or mortgage("Mortgage"). Notwithstanding the
foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of any
Mortgage made in good faith and for value, but all the terms and conditions contained in this
Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against any person or entity, including any deed
of trust beneficiary or mortgagee ("Mortgagee") who acquires title to the Property, or any
portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise.
11.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 11.1 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. A breach of any obligation secured
by any mortgage or the lien against the mortgaged interest or a foreclosure under any mortgage
9
or other lien shall not by itself defeat, diminish, render invalid or unenforceable, or otherwise
impair the obligations or rights of Developer under this Agreement,
11.3 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, at its option, 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. City, through its City Manager, may grant a sixty (60) day cure period which can
be extended for not more than an additional one-hundred and twenty (120) days upon request of
Developer or a Mortgagee.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. TRANSFERS AND ASSIGNMENTS.
14.1 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, conditioned or
delayed. In determining the reasonableness of any consent or failure to consent, the City
Manager shall consider whether the proposed Transferee has sufficient development experience
and creditworthiness to perform the obligations to be transferred. The foregoing
notwithstanding, the following shall not be deemed a"Transfer" for purposes of this Agreement:
(i) any sale, pledge, assignment or other transfer of the entire Project Site to an affiliate of
Developer and (ii) any change in the corporate form of Developer or its Affiliates such that a
transfer from a limited liability company to a corporation or partnership that does not affect or
10
change the beneficial ownership of the Project Site; provided, however that Developer shall
provide to the City written notice of such permitted change with such backup materials or
information reasonably requested by the City. In addition, Developer has the right to enter into
service contracts with third parties, including but not limited to construction and other service
contracts, to perform work required by Developer under this Agreement. No such contract shall
be deemed a Transfer under this Agreement.
14.2 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 reasonably acceptable to the City Manager, concurrently
with such sale, transfer, or assignment.
14.3 Release Upon Transfer. Upon the transfer, sale, or assignment of all or a portion
of Developer's rights, interests, and obligations hereunder pursuant to Paragraph 14.1 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. If a Transferee assumes the
obligations of Developer with respect to a portion of the Developer's rights, interests and
obligations hereunder, if such Transferee defaults under this Agreement, such default shall not
constitute a default by Developer or its Affiliates or any other Transferee not affiliated with the
defaulting party and no default by Developer or its Affiliates with respect to its remaining
obligations hereunder shall constitute a default by any Transferee not affiliated with Developer..
14.4 Developer's Right to Retain Specified Rights or Obligations. Notwithstanding
Paragraph 14 of this Agreement, 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, interests and obligations, and this Agreement shall remain
applicable to Developer with respect to such retained rights, interests, and/or obligations.
15. AGREEMENTS 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
11
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.
16. BANKRUPTCY.
The obligations of this Agreement shall not be dischargeable in bankruptcy.
17. 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.
18. INSURANCE.
18.1 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.
18.2 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.
18.3 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
12
in Sections 18.1 and 18.2 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.
19. 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
Facsimile: (925) 833-6651
Notices required to be given to Developer shall be addressed as follows:
Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place Land Company, LLC
c/o Stockbridge Real Estate Funds
4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 3300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Attention: Mr. Stephen Pilch
Telephone: (415) 658-3349
Facsimile: (415) 658-3449
With copies to:
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94105
Attention: Mary G. Murphy, Esq.
Telephone: (415) 393-8257
Facsimile: (415) 374-8480
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, electronic mail, 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.
20. EXTENSION DUE TO LEGAL ACTION, REFERENDUM OR EXCUSABLE
DELAY.
20.1 Litigation Challenging Agreement. If any litigation is filed challenging this
Agreement (including, but not limited to any CEQA determinations) or the validity of this
Agreement or any of its provisions, or if this Agreement is suspending pending the outcome of
13
an electoral vote on a referendum, then the Term shall be extended and Developer's
performance of any obligations hereunder for the number of days equal to the period starting
from the commencement of the litigation or the suspension to the end of such litigation or
suspension.
20.2 Excusable Delay. In the event of changes in state or federal laws or regulations,
inclement weather, delays due to strikes, inability to obtain materials, civil commotion war acts
of terrorism, fire, acts of God, litigation, or other circumstances beyond the control of Developer
and not proximately caused by the acts or omissions of Developer that substantially interfere
with carrying out the Project or any portion thereof or with the ability of Developer to perform
its obligations under this Agreement (collectively, along with the matters set forth in Section
20.1 above, "Excusable Delay"), the parties agree to extend the time periods for the performance
of Developer's obligations impacted by the Excusable Delay. In the event an Excusable Delay
occurs, Developer shall notify the City in writing of its belief of the existence of an Excusable
Delay within thirty (30) days after the beginning of any such Excusable Delay. If the Parties
agree that an Excusable Delay exists, the time or times for performance of obligations of
Developer, as well as the Term of this Agreement, shall be extended for the period of the
Excusable Delay. This provision shall not apply to Developer's obligations under Exhibit C.
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
Exhibit B Community Benefits
Exhibit C Affordable Housing
Exhibit D Phasing Plan
23. COUNTERPARTS.
This Agreement is executed in three (3) duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to
be an original.
24. RECORDATION.
The City shall record a copy of this Agreement within ten (10) days following execution
by all parties.
[Execution Page Follows]
14
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
as of the date and year first above written.
STOCKBRIDGE/BHV EMERALD PLACE
CITY OF DUBLIN LAND COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company
By: By: STOCKBRIDGE FUND II/EMERALD
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager PLACE INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC,
STOCKBRIDGE PLACE INVESTMENT
COMPANY, LLC, STOCKBRIDGE FUND
E/EMERALD PLACE INVESTMENT
COMPANY, LLC, each a Delaware limited
liability company and a"Stockbridge
Member"
By: STOCKBRIDGE REAL ESTATE
PARTNERS II, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, manager of each of the
foregoing
By:
Stephen Pilch
Managing Director
Attest:
Caroline Soto, City Clerk
Approved as to form
John Bakker, City Attorney
(NOTARIZATION ATTACHED)
15
Exhibit A
Lead Descrintion
The Green at Park Pface
for
Stye 2 Devebprnent Pan SutaVttaf
Land Diaserlptlon of real property situate in the City of Dublin,County of Alamed a, State of California,
being m ore particularly d escri be d as follows:
Parcels 1,2, and A of Parcel Map 9262,filed on June 19,2007,in Book 299 of Parcel Maps at Pages 69
through 79,inclusive, Official Records of Alameda County.
Excepting therefrom,that portion of Parcel I conveyed to the State of California, recorded on
September 27, 2012 as Instrument No. 2012-316839, Official Records of Alameda County.
END OF DESCR I FTON
APN 9WO03 3-005-02 Affects Parcel 1
APN 996-003 3-004 Affects Parcel A
APN 9WO03 3-006 Affects Parcel 2
Exhibit B
COMMUNITY BENEFITS
The Developer shall provide a community benefit contribution in the aggregate amount
equal to the number of dwelling units in the project (currently estimated at 372) multiplied by
$7,500. The aggregate amount of the Community Benefit Contribution, based on the current
estimated unit count of 372 units, is Two Million Seven Hundred Ninety Thousand Dollars
($2,790,000) (the "Community Benefit Aggregate Contribution") and shall be paid in the
following amounts and manner, subject to Excusable Delay. The number of units attributable to
any particular neighborhood or parcel may increase up to 400 units or decrease from the
representative amounts shown on the vesting tentative map. If the number of units proposed for
Site Development Review increases or decreases, as the case may be, the Community Benefit
Contribution shall increase or decrease, by $7,500 per additional unit, and the contribution
amount below shall by increased or decreased, to reflect the number of units in each
neighborhood. The number of units shall be determined at the time a purchase and sale
agreement with a third party buyer is consummated or(if Developer or an affiliate is developing
the neighborhood),a permit is issued for the construction of a vertical building (the "Vertical
Building Permit").
1. Method and Timing of Payment.
The Project currently is planned for 372 residential units and additional commercial
development. Developer has identified six neighborhoods in the project that are depicted in the
attached diagram. The following table identifies the lots shown on the approved tentative map
that are in each neighborhood along with the proposed number of approved units in each
neighborhood:
Neighborhood Lot Nos. on No. of Units Contribution
Tentative Map Amount
1 1-16 84 $630,000
2 17-24, 27-32 93 $697,500
3 50-60 60 $450,000
4 37-42, 44-48 72 $540,000
5 33-34, 42-43 39 $292,500
6 25-26, 35-36 24 $180,000
Totals 372 $2,790,000.00
If Developer or an affiliate is developing the building, such party shall contribute the amount
associated with each neighborhood prior to issuance of the first Vertical Building Permit within
1
the neighborhood, or if a third party buyer is purchasing a portion of the Project Site, within
thirty (30) days following the close of escrow of the sale of any portion of the applicable
neighborhood.
2. Use of Community Benefit Contribution.
Initially, Developer shall pay the City forty percent (40%) of the required contributions
and deposit the remaining sixty percent (60%) of the required contribution in an escrow account
controlled by the City and Developer (the "Escrow Account"). The funds in the Escrow Account
are to be used to pay the Dublin San Ramon Services District capacity reserve fees for local and
regional sewage systems for restaurant users within the Project as directed by City and
Developer. The contributions shall be apportioned in such manner until such time as the
aggregate amount of contributions to the Escrow Account equals Eight Hundred and Fifty
Thousand Dollars ($850,000). Thereafter, one hundred percent (100%) of the required
contributions shall be paid directly to the City. Any funds remaining in the Escrow Account one
year after the issuance of building permits in the project that would result in the construction of
190 or more units shall be paid to the City.
All provisions in this Exhibit B, Community Benefits, shall survive the expiration of this
Agreement.
2
ATTACHMENT TO EXHIBIT B
.emu
i
U 111i. 1 Gl,�ll r�f��1�A {ra
�u
Neighborhood 1 _a ��
Neighborhood 3 j
f
--- -- —�
Nerghborhood2 Neighborhood ��'`_ ��eighborhood4
"fffh
- Neighborhood 5 l- _ r
�n` � / Lt 111LW11i111Lt1i111LL11J1i1111ll1i1111 1 111i111ll11i1 LLW I I f 1.114 "`
{ .
3
Exhibit C
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Developer proposes the development of 372 residential units on the Property. Pursuant to
the City's Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Chapter 8.68 of the Dublin Municipal Code) ("the
Regulations"), developers of more than 20 residential units are required to set aside 12.5% of the
units in the project as affordable units as therein specified. Developer is therefore obligated to
provide forty-seven (47) affordable units ("Affordable Housing Obligation").
Under the Regulations, certain exceptions permit developers to satisfy the obligation
other than through on-site construction. For instance, part of this obligation can be satisfied
through the payment of a fee in-lieu of construction ("In-Lieu Fees"). In addition, developers
can satisfy their affordable housing obligations by, among other mechanisms, obtaining City
Council approval of an alternative method of compliance that the City Council finds meet the
purposes of the Regulations. Developer shall satisfy its Affordable Housing Obligation through
the following "alternative method of compliance" under City Code Sec. 8.68.040E:
1. On-Site Affordable Units. The Developer shall provide over the course of the
development of the Project Site fourteen (14) affordable units within the project (the "On-Site
Units"), which number shall be adjusted to reflect thirty percent (30%) of Developer's 12.5%
affordable unit obligation, should the total number of residential units in the project increase or
decrease. Unless the Community Development Director otherwise finds that the On-Site Units
will be reasonably dispersed through the Project, the individual neighborhoods shall contain the
following number of units: Neighborhood 1, 3 units; Neighborhood 2, 4 units; Neighborhood 3,
2 units; Neighborhood 4, 3 units; Neighborhood 5, 1 unit; and Neighborhood 6, 1 unit. Dublin
Municipal Code Section 8.68.030.13 shall govern the allocation between low and moderate units
within the On-Site Units and Section 8.68.030.E shall govern unit mix and design of the On-Site
Units. Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement within 180 days of the
Effective Date of this Agreement.
2. In Lieu Fee Payments. The Developer shall pay to the City a Fee In Lieu of
Construction for 16 units of the Affordable Housing Obligation in either of the following
amounts:
(1) $1,600,000 no later than one hundred and eighty (180) days after the Effective Date
of this Agreement (subject to Excusable Delay); or
(2) An amount equal to the then-applicable Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee for 16 units
in the amount and at the time required by Resolution 56-02.
3. Affordable Housing Credits. The Developer shall purchase directly from
Eden Housing seventeen (17) affordable housing credits in an amount equal to $100,000 per
credit, or One Million Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars in the aggregate. ($1,700,000). The
Developer shall purchase the Affordable Housing Credits from Eden no later than one hundred
and eighty (180) days from the Effective Date of this Agreement, subject to Excusable Delay
1
(the "Credit Deadline"). The credits shall be immediately applied to satisfy 17 units of the
Affordable Housing Obligation. If Eden Housing does not have such credits when Developer is
required to satisfy this obligation, then Developer will pay the City One Million Seven Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($1,700,000)within five (5) calendar days of the Credit Deadline. This
payment will satisfy Developer's obligation for 17 units of the Affordable Housing Obligation.
The City will use such funds to acquire affordable housing credits directly from Eden, if they are
created, and apply them retroactively to satisfy 17 units of the Affordable Housing Obligation.
4. Adjustment Based on Total Unit Count. If, for whatever reason, the total number
of dwelling units constructed on the Project Site is less than 372, the number of On-Site Units
and In-Lieu fees shall be proportionately reduced , such that the Aggregate Affordable Housing
Obligation equals 12.5% of the total number of dwelling units in the Project except that the
Aggregate Affordable Housing Obligation shall not be reduced as to In-Lieu Fees already paid or
housing credits already purchased and applied. If, for whatever reason, the total number of
dwelling units constructed on the Project Site is more than 372, the number of On-Site Units and
In-Lieu fees shall be proportionately increased, such that the Aggregate Affordable Housing
Obligation equals 12.5% of the total number of dwelling units in the Project.
5. Affordable Housing Agreement. In order to ensure compliance with Chapter 8.68
of the Dublin Municipal Code,-Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement
prior to the issuance of the first Vertical Building Permit for the Project. The City Manager is
authorized to enter into such an agreement that is consistent with the requirements of this exhibit.
2
Exhibit D
PHASING PLAN
The Parties agree that the Project may be developed in phases and that Developer shall have the
right to develop the Project in development phases in such order and time, and with such
characteristics (subject to the Project Approvals) as Developer determines in the exercise of its
selective business judgment, except as specifically provided below:
The City may withhold building permits that would result in the development of more than 190
residential units on the Project Site until such time as Developer has obtained occupancy for
buildings 400, 500, 600, 700, and 800 as illustrated in attached diagram. The Parties
acknowledge and agree that Developer cannot control the timing of the leasing or tenancy of
such retail buildings and Developer's obligations hereunder shall not include the completion of
tenant improvements or furniture, fixtures, and equipment.
3
ATTACHMENT TO EXHIBIT D
hmYMy r .r,
r�/ u/
1
-1 Y
pp
"IT
w
d1(iiw >Mat 7' '�u; " r 6W
ka 4 aerir * ' mine A (• r � f LJJ
w«Md w i ` �a r�r
Lmr7 t��f'� �I �u 18� I f d v'i/ I weeatw�Pd(�ruGu 1, .
s;,u mr�} ., ' ".. mnw ,wmrrw•.arr mu-x^,w ^+m macro-roe, wnr r",'f'� C, r retie ^� % ..
d I� �atw�aueai.cis t�tnA,4"sa�ua aulu'�.¢iJ1i.�ru a.aanu i i[aai w
Jlr
b'4J Y}P%°ALHGiXY.Fl .m W Vol 1.S_ART It
wIY ft
trV • f �w` C
tl�
4
DRAFT DRAFT
Planning Commission Minutes
kkM�
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 26,
2014, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Bhuthimethee called the
meeting to order at 7:02:07 P
Present: Chair Bhuthimethee; Vice Chair Goel; Commissioners Do, O'Keefe, and Kohli; Luke
Sims, Community Development Director; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development
Director; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; Marnie Delgado, Senior
Planner. and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary.
Absent: None
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA — NONE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Do and seconded by Cm. Kohli,
on a vote of 4-0-1, Cm. Goel being absent, the Planning Commission approved the minutes of
the August 12, 2014 meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR.— NONE
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE
PUBLIC HEARINGS —
8.1 PLPA-2014-0017 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and associated
amendments to the Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Dublin Village
Historic Area Specific Plan, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin Zoning
Ordinance.
Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Ms. Delgado introduced, Andrew Russell, City Engineer, who presented an overview of the
Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the term "complete streets" refers to all modes of transportation,
i.e., cars, bicycles and pedestrians.
Mr. Russell answered yes and added that it also includes mass transit, trucks, commercial and
emergency vehicles. He stated that it is important to look at the surrounding land use context
and the functional classification of the street to determine what a complete street is and
emergency vehicles are part of that.
Cm. Goel asked if there are more current statistics for collisions.
111fanning Gamrni�sion ,4,26,20(4
DRAFT DRAFT
Mr. Russell responded that, at the time the update was prepared, there were no updated
statistics.
Cm. Goel asked if there were any particular areas of concern.
Mr. Russell answered that he is not aware of any areas of concern.
Cm. Goel asked, when creating the project priority list of three main projects, were any
considerations made for citywide equity.
Mr. Russell responded that the document focused on the downtown area because the
pedestrian element was noted in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP). He stated that
some of the current developments have integrated bike lanes and sidewalk as connections to
transit, but he was not aware of a decision made for equity across the city. It was discussed in
the workshops and was a focus of the participants.
Cm. Goel asked if the plan identifies areas where current businesses are located or future
development not yet built (i.e., paths to and from Fallon Gateway, Lowes and the Kaiser parcel).
Mr. Russell answered yes; he stated that the plan identifies approximately $10 million of bike
improvements and $5 million of pedestrian improvements outside of the priority projects. He
stated that the vast majority of bike improvements are slated to be completed by the developer
or property owner who is responsible for frontage improvements, i.e., sidewalk, curb and gutter,
a bike lane and a lane of traffic. He felt it would be a $7 million-$2.5 million split between what
the developer would fund and what the city would need to integrate into a Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP).
Cm. Goel asked if there is a section in the plan that addresses public perception related to
citywide equity. He felt that the priority list includes only west side projects and nothing on the
east.
Mr. Russell felt that the master plan would not be the venue to discuss that issue. He stated
that, as Dublin has developed, infrastructure has been built to support the development, and in
areas where the property owner has not developed the property, the City would not expect the
infrastructure to be completed which can cause connectivity issues at times. He stated that,
where possible, the City has tried to integrate temporary pedestrian and bike facilities if there is
room, but there is a cost and the City Council would need to prioritize those expenditures.
Cm. Goel referred to "access to and from schools" in the plan and asked what the school
district's concerns were.
Mr. Russell responded that the focus of the 2007 plan was connectivity to trails, parks and
recreation activities, as well as bike lanes on streets. Staff worked with the school district on the
Safe Routes to School program. He felt that the school district was concerned with taking
school impacts into consideration as projects are approved. He stated that environmental
documents are always shared with the school district. He stated that there is a project under
construction currently that hopes to provide bike transit opportunities to Dublin High School
which would be the integration of a buffered bike lane on Village Parkway. He stated that Staff
presented the concept to the City Council as a complete streets element that can be integrated
111fanning Gmnrni�sion ,4,26,20(4
DRAFT DRAFT
because the right-of-way exists, and simply re-stripe the street and improve active transportation
to and from the high school to downtown Dublin.
Cm. Kohli asked about the progress of discussions with Pleasanton and CalTrans regarding a
joint solution to the overcrossing issue.
Mr. Russell stated that the 2007 plan identified the freeway overcrossing as a concern of
bicyclists and it was identified in the update as a concern for both bicyclists and pedestrians. He
stated that Staff meets regularly with the City of Pleasanton and that the City of Pleasanton is
conducting a project at San Ramon Road/Foothill Road and 1-580 that will integrate bike lanes.
He stated that Staff is meeting with the City of Pleasanton and Cal Trans on August 27, 2014 to
discuss the issue.
Cm. Kohli expressed concern with pedestrian/bike safety at the Fallon Road/El Charro Road
overcrossing.
Mr. Russell responded that the freeway on-ramps and overcrossings are controlled by CalTrans;
the city limit line is on the north side of the freeway so they have to work with Pleasanton on any
issue. He stated that the previous improvements did not have the "complete streets" philosophy
in their design; therefore, there is not adequate room for pedestrians and bikes. He stated that
Staff realizes the need for those improvements and the hope is to identify funding sources and
work with CalTrans and Pleasanton to team up on projects. The overcrossings are an element
of the current plan that is important. The Alamo Canal Trail is an example of linking Dublin to
Pleasanton, totally separate from vehicle traffic, which is an ideal situation, but limited in
applicability to the rest of the City.
Cm. Kohli asked what the best time estimate would be for a resolution between the stakeholders
regarding the overcrossing issue.
Mr. Russell was unsure when the issue would be resolved. He stated that he is not aware of
any specific project that either Dublin or Pleasanton is working on with CalTrans beyond the
Pleasanton project on Foothill Road. He stated that, as future development comes up,
pedestrian and bike facilities will be integrated. He felt that Staff has confidence in the Plan and
crossing the freeway is extremely important and Pleasanton acknowledges the same thing.
Cm. Kohli agreed and felt that everyone agrees that it needs to be expedited.
Chair Bhuthimethee was concerned with the safety of the overpass at San Ramon Road/Foothill
Road and 1-580 within Dublin.
Mr. Russell received some concerns regarding the current conditions and the Public Works Staff
is meeting with Pleasanton and CalTrans to discuss potential alternatives.
Chair Bhuthimethee asked Mr. Russell to share some of Staff's discussions regarding the bike
lanes on Dublin Blvd. She felt that the connectivity and safety along Dublin Blvd is not the best,
especially when there are not a lot of alternatives.
Mr. Russell responded that the Dublin Blvd corridor was mentioned in the 2007 plan and was
extensively studied for the update. He stated that one of the original alternatives was widening
Dublin Blvd to allow for a paved bike lane and the 6 lanes of traffic. He mentioned some near
111fanning Gmnrni�sion ,4,26,20(4
DRAFT DRAFT
term solutions were discussed, such as widening the sidewalk on the south side, and reducing
the lanes from 6 to 4. He stated that options are limited due to the fact that Dublin Blvd is a
reliever route to the freeway and a major east/west connector. He stated that, after a
community meeting, there was a suggestion that there should be something to formalize that
bikes have the right to be on the road. The solution was to install "sharrows" and signing on
Dublin Blvd as a bike route. He felt that there could be some room to narrow the lanes closest
to the medians and provide a wider lane along the curb. He stated that the plan attempts to
cover a wide spectrum of bike users, and a lot of people are not comfortable on Dublin Blvd.
Cyclists can ride on the sidewalk and the City will provide sharrows on the street. He stated that
they are also looking for alternatives to Dublin Blvd. He felt that St. Patrick Way will be an
alternative route and improvements under the freeway for both bikes and pedestrians will be
installed. Staff does not want to create a project that will cost millions of dollars but has a
limited chance to be funded. He cautioned that to widen or narrow the road would create delays
and congestion which Staff could not support; therefore, Staff went to City Council for direction.
Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the City could ask new tenants to include bicycle racks.
Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, stated that, under the Green Building
Code for tenant improvements, new tenants would be required to provide bike parking.
Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing.
Kristi Marleau, resident and board member of Bike East Bay, spoke in favor of the project.
Rich Guarienti, resident, spoke in favor of the project. He was concerned with connectivity
within the City and felt that the Planning Commission should take that into consideration when
reviewing each new development. He felt the biggest challenges were Dublin Blvd. and the
freeway overcrossings.
Bill Anderson, resident, spoke regarding the project and was concerned with connectivity
(east/west) within the City, the safety of Dublin Blvd. and the overcrossings.
Chair Bhuthimethee closed the public hearing.
Mr. Russell responded to the comment regarding east/west connections in the City. He stated
that the plan includes improvements along Dublin Blvd as well as the intersection of Village
Pkwy. and Amador Valley Blvd is intended to be retrofitted to be more pedestrian friendly.
Cm. Kohli stated that he is in support of the project, and asked that Staff provide an update to
the Planning Commission on their discussions with Pleasanton and CalTrans regarding the
overcrossing issue. He asked the other Commissioners if they had any suggestions regarding
how to make Dublin Blvd safer for bikes.
Chair Bhuthimethee agreed with Cm. Kohli but felt that, if the City is committed to encouraging a
healthy community and wants the residents to do more walking and biking, the City must be
committed to solving these types of problems.
Cm. Kohli felt that Staff has done a great job of working with the stakeholders, but the
overcrossing issue is out of our hands because it involves another cities and CalTrans. He
asked if the Planning Commission can recommend a more sense of urgency regarding that
111fanning Gamrni�sion ,4,26,20(4
DRAFT DRAFT
issue. He suggested more organized sessions that bring in City Council, Commissioners, and
community members to continue to keep it a topic. He understood the limitations and
suggested working with developers who want to build along the Dublin Blvd. corridor to bring
other ideas forward. He asked if anyone had any further ideas on how to help with the process.
Cm. O'Keefe felt that there are two options to address Dublin Blvd. and neither option will work
and for reasons that are outside the Planning Commission purview. He felt that the issue has
been reviewed thoroughly and it's been determined that it is not possible.
Cm. Goel stated that there is a county-wide bike and pedestrian plan that was developed, with
input from the cities within the county. The county plan also works towards procurement of
funds and identification of priority projects. Dublin's priority projects will be identified at the
county wide level and they also prioritize key corridor elements. He stated that the county-wide
plan is under review currently by the Transportation Commission for Alameda County and the
coordination between the various cities and CalTrans is communicated to the Commission. He
felt that the plan is comprehensive. He stated that there is some gridlock near BART corridor
and that developers should consider pedestrian overpasses and critical corridors for
underpasses and connectivity to trails and retail. He congratulated Staff for their hard work on
the plan. He stated that he is in support of the plan.
Cm. Do commended Staff for their work on the plan, is in support of the plan and can't wait to
see it implemented.
Cm. O'Keefe thanked Cm. Goel for explaining the document and providing feedback. He stated
that he is in support of the project.
Chair Bhuthimethee agreed with the other Commissioners and thanked the public who
commented and participated in the workshops. She commended Staff for their hard work which
shows the City's commitment to pedestrian and cyclist connectivity. She stated that when the
Planning Commission and Staff review developments, connectivity is part of that review
because it is important to the Planning Commission. She felt that marking lanes is essential for
safe travels.
Cm. Kohli felt the plan is solid and asked Staff to provide an update on the discussion with the
City of Pleasanton and CalTrans regarding the overcrossing issue. He also encouraged the City
Council, the public, Staff and the Commission to come up with suggestions to improve on the
plan.
On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission
unanimously adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 46
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE DUBLIN
GENERAL PLAN, EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN, DUBLIN VILLAGE HISTORIC AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN, DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AND DUBLIN ZONING
ORDINANCE FOR THE PROPOSED CITY OF DUBLIN
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
1111,�anntnfl Gmrtrni�s�m ,4,26,20(4
DRAFT DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 46
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
CITY OF DUBLIN BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN AND RELATED AMENDMENTS TO
THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN, EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN, DUBLIN VILLAGE
HISTORIC AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AND
DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE
8.2 PLPA-2013-00013 The Green Mixed Use Project - General Plan Amendment, Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezoning with related Stage 1
and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings only),
Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement, and Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report.
Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Cm. Kohli asked how long the land has been designated commercial.
Ms. Bascom answered that the land has been designated commercial since 2004. She stated
that the land was originally campus office but was changed to commercial when the IKEA
project was approved in 2004.
Cm. Kohli asked if the current Applicant has been involved with the land since the beginning.
Ms. Bascom answered yes; the current Applicant was involved with the IKEA project as well as
the 305,000 sf commercial center.
Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing.
Jerry Hunt, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project. He pointed out that, when developing the
current project, they took into consideration not just the property, but the surrounding properties
and how they would be affected by the project. The Green project was designed to create a
public gathering space, with a sense of pride for the community with quality restaurants and
residential that will complement Persimmon Place. He also stated that there will be multiple
bike racks and they will be installing bike lanes on Martinelli Way and Arnold Road.
Hans Baldauf, Architect, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that the Applicant wanted to
optimize the location and its proximity to a transit oriented district; the retail portion of the site is
within a 10 minute walking distance to the BART station and pointed out the connectivity with
the surrounding uses. He stated that they designed the project to complement the Persimmon
Place project. He also spoke regarding the architecture for the commercial portion and
presented a video fly-by showing the project; he added comments regarding the wind study that
was done, as well as the type of shade that will be available at the project.
1111,�anntnfl Gmrnni�s�m ,4,26,20(4
DRAFT DRAFT
Cm. Do asked about their plan for delivery trucks at the service entrances for the commercial
component, and if they have a plan to prevent BART riders from parking at the project.
Mr. Hunt responded that there will be security monitoring of the parking lot as the retail tenants
will require it. He stated that most of the commercial tenants will be smaller businesses that will
require only small trucks for deliveries. He stated that the service areas will operate and
function like a small pad building.
Mr. Baldauf stated that most deliveries would occur in the double loaded parking field at the rear
of the buildings, early in the day, before most customer parking will occur. He stated that the
double loaded parking on each side allows the street to be closed and access is still provided.
With street closures, they can actually gain space on special days.
Cm. Kohli complimented the Applicant for their presentation and thanked Staff for their work on
the project. He felt that, with The Persimmon project being built, it seems like there is an uptake
in retail wanting to come into Dublin. He asked what market trends they studied and what drove
the Applicant towards the mixed-use development instead of staying with the commercial land
use designation and bringing a development forward that is pure commercial/retail.
Mr. Hunt answered that he has always done retail projects, not residential. He felt that the
original Green project would have been a wonderful project, but the market changed and the
nature of retail business changed. He felt that there is not enough depth in retail to build
300,000 sf of retail/commercial on their property in addition to the 165,000 sf at Persimmon
Place. He felt that there are few transit oriented district opportunities in the Bay Area and this is
the best and the most important. He did not feel that a car dealer or a big box store would be
appropriate on the property. He stated that he tried to create a project that brings two acres of
public amenities.
Chair Bhuthimethee noticed from the EIR that there is no sound wall along 1-580 and asked if it
will be part of the residential portion.
Mr. Hunt responded that the Planning Commission will be able to review that part of the project
when the Site Development Review for the residential portion comes forward.
Mr. Baker clarified that the Planning Commission is reviewing and making a recommendation on
the environmental document.
Chair Bhuthimethee asked to see a site plan of the project and asked about the green circles
shown along 1-580.
Bill Smith, Smith and Smith Landscape Architect, pointed out the CalTrans line along 1-580. He
stated that, behind the fence on the site side, there are many substructure utilities. In between
the utilities they are proposing to plant evergreen trees and vegetation to help break up the
area. He stated that they are proposing a multi-use trail in the area that will connect to Iron
Horse Trail.
Chair Bhuthimethee was under the impression that there would be no trees in that area.
Mr. Smith stated that they will work with CalTrans to determine where they can plant trees and
shrubs.
111fanning Gmnrni�sion ,4,26,20(4
DRAFT DRAFT
Chair Bhuthimethee mentioned that the EIR stated an issue is air quality and one mitigation
measure is, to the greatest degree possible, to plant vegetation, trees and shrubs along project
site boundary along I-580.
Ms. Bascom stated that the landscape plan included in the packet, Sheet L.13.0, is the concept
landscape plan that the Planning Commission will review. She stated that there is a Condition
of Approval for the project that states, should the Applicant be able to enhance the area with
trees and additional landscaping, Staff will support that. She wanted to ensure that the Planning
Commission understood that this area may not be a lushly landscaped area. She added that
Staff will mandate that the Applicant do whatever they can to landscape the area, but there is no
guarantee of landscaping in that area due to utility conflicts.
Eddie Sieu, RJA, spoke regarding the public utilities and storm drain easements on the south
perimeter of the project that include gas lines, telephone lines, joint trench and an 84" storm
drain. Those utilities currently exist and trees will be planted between them to satisfy the utility
agencies requirements for horizontal separation.
Ms. Bascom stated that Staff asked the Applicant to show in the plan a realistic depiction of
what will be there.
Chair Bhuthimethee asked if another crosswalk could be installed across Hacienda Drive, on the
south side of Martinelli Way, at the Lazy Dog Cafe to the new development.
Obaid Khan, Traffic Engineer, responded that Public Works has reviewed the issue of
connecting the current project to Hacienda Crossings by enhancing the crosswalks with textures
to match Martinelli Way. He stated that, in order to enhance connectivity, the Applicant has
proposed to convert the road, running parallel to the 580 freeway, to a Class I trail (bike and
pedestrian trail) and creating a cul-de-sac at the end of Arnold Road which will provide a
connection from Hacienda Crossings to the BART station. He stated that cyclist or pedestrians
can use the Class I bike trail to avoid using Dublin Blvd.
Mr. Baker felt that the question was about an additional crosswalk at the south side of Martinelli
Way which would connect to the new development and asked Mr. Khan to explain why there will
not be an enhanced crosswalk at that corner.
Mr. Khan asked Chair Bhuthimethee if she was requesting that a crosswalk be added on the
south side of Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way.
Chair Bhuthimethee responded that, when reviewing the Lazy Dog Cafe project, the Planning
Commission had requested a crosswalk across Hacienda Drive from Hacienda Crossing to
Building 100 of the current project.
Mr. Khan stated that there is a crosswalk on the north side of that intersection but he understood
that Chair Bhuthimethee was requesting a new crosswalk on the south side.
Chair Bhuthimethee answered yes.
Mr. Khan stated that currently Hacienda Drive is a very busy street and creating more
crosswalks will change the signal timing at the Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way intersection.
111fanning Gmnrni�sion ,4,26,20(4
DRAFT DRAFT
He stated that the signal operates with overlapping turn lanes, so when one movement goes
another can happen at the same time and they are going in different directions. He stated that
they don't want to put pedestrian where cars are running throughout the signal cycle. He stated
that if they added a crosswalk it would impact the timing of the signal and will cause a problem
with back up on the freeway. He agreed to review the issue and determine if there is a way to
do what she asked but stated that another crosswalk is not included in the plan.
Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she was opposed to pollarded trees and felt it was unnatural
and they would not hold up with the wind in Dublin. However, considering the context and the
presentation she felt that they will fit the space. She requested that they not include the
pollarded trees in the residential area.
Mr. Baldauf agreed.
Cm. Kohli asked if the Applicant had given any thought to locating the residential portion away
from the freeway, keeping it close to BART and introducing more retail/restaurant uses that he
felt would be a better fit adjacent to Hacienda Crossings and the Persimmon Place project.
Mr. Baldauf responded that they believed that they could provide a quality mix of tenants and
with Persimmon Place taking most of the quality tenants in the market, they didn't feel they
wanted to try to be the junior brother in the area but wanted to do something that is organized in
a way that fits two goals; 1) to create the community gathering space that was part of the
previous Green at Park Place project, and by turning the orientation gave a wind sheltering
effect, 2) the orientation to Persimmon Place was very important, so by orienting it as an
extension of Persimmon Place, gives their project a larger position within the community.
Mr. Hunt agreed and assured the Planning Commission that over the years they have looked at
every scenario. He felt that this is a difficult rectangular site to design. He stated that the main
entry must remain where it is, which was the former IKEA Way, there is no access onto
Hacienda Drive, only have right-in/right-out on the east side and felt that if the retail were shifted
there would be more land than tenants.
Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing, and having no speakers, closed the public
hearing.
Cm. Do stated that she is in support of the project and excited to see the community gathering
place which is important to the residents.
Cm. O'Keefe stated that he is in support of the project. He liked that it is close to the transit
oriented district and the architecture gave him the "wow" that the City Council was looking for.
He felt it was different and liked the community gathering place. He thanked the Applicant for
enhancing the service doors because a lot of homeowners will be looking at them. He
appreciated their attention to detail in their design.
Cm. Goel referred to Page 5 of the FSEIR document regarding schools and student generation.
He stated that the letter speculated 60 students for the project and asked Ms. Bascom to
comment.
Ms. Bascom referred to the letter from the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) dated July 9th
that stated the estimate which is based on the unit count and the unit type for the project.
111fanning Gamrni�sion ,4,26,20(4
DRAFT DRAFT
Cm. Goel asked what the estimated number of students.
Ms. Bascom responded that the estimate was 60-70 elementary students and a smaller amount
of middle and high school students.
Cm. Goel did not agree with that number and asked for the total number of units again.
Ms. Bascom responded that there are a total of 372 townhome and condo units.
Cm. Goel was concerned about the 2013/14 numbers from the school district and felt the
number in the EIR is off by several hundred and he is not supportive of that. He was also
concerned with traffic and the level of service at the adjacent intersections.
Cm. Khan asked which intersection he was referring to.
Cm. Goel answered that he was referring to all the intersections in a half mile radius.
Mr. Khan referred the Planning Commission to the Draft SEIR which lists long term cumulative
conditions for signalized intersections which found that there was only one signalized
intersection that was found as a significant impact (Scarlett Drive and Dublin Blvd). He stated
that the concern was because of the pedestrian crossing at the Iron Horse Trail. He added that
when reviewing the Dublin Crossing project, one of the mitigations could be a bridge. He stated
that the City is moving forward with the feasibility study for the overcrossing bridge later this
year. In terms of the concern on Hacienda Drive, Staff did a signalized intersection analysis and
arterial level of service analysis and found that the arterial level of increase volume to capacity
ratio of 2% Hacienda Drive intersection due to the current project. He stated that he was
referring to 2035 numbers.
There was a discussion regarding traffic, the level of service at intersections in proximity to the
project and the mitigations for significant and unavoidable impacts.
Mr. Khan stated that the Alameda County Transportation Commission and CalTrans have
challenged the City to ensure that they are not impacting bike and pedestrian access if
completing mitigation. They also requested that Dublin not complete mitigation at Dublin Blvd
and Arnold Road because it could impact bike and pedestrian access; at the same time, Staff
doesn't want to create a situation where they can't use the intersection. He felt that adding a
lane or widening the road is not possible. He stated that the State is also requiring an increase
to the walking time for pedestrians at intersections. He stated that at every place that they tried
to address the mitigation, it would require either widening the road or taking the existing property
from already existing development, which is not viable.
Cm. Goel asked, if the project remained commercial, would that impact go away.
Mr. Khan did not have that answer because that was not part of the analysis.
Ms. Bascom stated that the IKEA SEIR had a traffic analysis that was specific to that project and
the 300,000 sf commercial project, approved in 2008. Without referring to the IKEA SEIR to see
what mitigation measures would have been required, the proposed project will have fewer daily
111fanning Gmnrni�sion ,4,26,20(4
DRAFT DRAFT
trips, fewer a.m. peak hour trips, and slightly more p.m. peak hour trips than either of the
commercial projects.
Cm. Goel asked what the height limit is for the residential structures along 1-580.
Ms. Bascom stated that the height limit is in the PD Ordinance but felt it was 45-50 feet.
Cm. Goel felt that 45-50 feet was taller than a sound wall.
Ms. Bascom stated that there is no sound wall proposed for this project.
Cm. Goel stated that part of the sound mitigation was to not allow balconies facing 1-580, and to
use sound barrier treatment on the residential facilities. He was concerned that the residential
component was not included in the fly-over video but the Planning Commission is being asked
to recommend the environmental piece associated with it.
Cm. Kohli felt that Cm. Goel brought excellent points regarding traffic and environmental issues.
He stated that he shares the enthusiasm of Cm. Do and O'Keefe about this type of project
coming to Dublin. He had thought that this parcel of land would be some sort of lifestyle center,
similar to Santana Row or just pure commercial/retail that would complement Hacienda
Crossings. He felt that other new retail centers are growing and in certain situations he likes the
idea of Mixed Use and felt that the Applicant has done a good job of trying to bring this spirit to
Dublin, but he felt it was a residential project masked as Mixed Use. He stated that he would
like to see less residential and more retail/restaurant, because whatever is built will remain for a
long time. He felt that more retail businesses are being attracted to Dublin and commend the
Applicant for thinking through the project, but he felt that the Planning Commission has a
responsibility to make the right recommendation to the City Council for the best type of project
and he did not feel he can support the project under the Mixed Use designation unless the
Planning Commission suggests a Condition of Approval that requires reduced residential. He
felt that he could not approve a re-designation for this project.
Cm. Goel stated that, after seeing the video fly-over, he saw a well thought-out project with a
community element, a nice business facility, and good ambiance at the center. He was
concerned with the residential component being so close to 1-580 and the BART line as well as
other traffic concerns for residents. He was also concerned with the phasing of the residential
component which he felt would be built from the worst spot with the lowest return inward
towards the retail. He asked what will happen if the market changes. He stated that there will
be tall art and potentially very high residential structures and was concerned that Persimmon
Place would be hidden and would not create a magnet into the City. He felt that the "sense of
place" that the Planning Commission has wanted would be shielded by building residential right
next to 1-580. He stated that he didn't know which was better; developing the project and going
bankrupt or developing the project and it remains empty. He felt the plan is premature and that
there are better opportunities. He stated that he likes the center gathering space with the retail
component, but was not sure about the vehicle movement in the center, although it works at
Santana Row and could work for this project. He stated that he has heard people ask for small
commercial space, small work-live spaces, but they don't have anywhere in Dublin to go. He
was concerned about school impacts and rapid growth in Dublin with this project increasing
those numbers. He was concerned with traffic impacts of the project. He stated that if the
project was strictly commercial he could support it, but he looks at the project as a whole and
could not support it.
111fanning Gmnrni�sion ,4,26,20(4
DRAFT DRAFT
Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she shares some Cm. Kohli and Cm. Goel's concerns regarding
traffic, the addition of residential and the school impacts. She felt that the project is very unique
and it would be a waste of its proximity to the TOD if it were full commercial. She felt that this is
where you want to allow people to walk have a connection to mass transit. She felt it is
appropriate project, close to that BART station, where residents can walk to the residential and
commercial, but if it was full commercial people would drive there. She felt it was a good
transition project. She felt it is a good, quality project and appropriate in this location. She was
impressed with the building architecture, and has been waiting for statement architecture to
come to Dublin. She stated that Pleasanton or San Ramon has nothing like this, and the
sculpture element and the huge trees make it unique. She commended the Applicant for
including the huge trees. She pointed out the trees on Sheet L-12 which will make the project
feel like it's been there for quite a while. The new and different architecture along with the site
elements, are also reflective of style. Interior images are very compelling with a "wow" factor
and she would love to see this project completed. She stated that she likes the lighting design.
The design team was right to address the back-of-building and agreed with Cm. O'Keefe that
those sorts of views of all sides of the building are important to the Planning Commission. She
agreed with Cm. Goel regarding the buildings at Persimmon Place not being outward facing, but
she felt this is a lifestyle center with the residential component and the unique commercial
component and a lot of the spaces are well detailed with a lot of thought into it. She stated that
she is in support of the project.
Cm. O'Keefe responded to Cm. Goel's comments regarding noise and view; he felt it is a
personal preference and stated that he likes to be lively and hear what's going on, and some
people don't have a preference for quiet. He stated that he would not support a sound wall and
did not have a problem with not being able to see Whole Foods from the freeway. There will be
a buzz about the project and it will be a destination development. He was not concerned with
people not finding their way to the development. He stated that he is in support of the project
and respectfully disagreed with Cm. Goel.
Chair Bhuthimethee felt that Cm. Goel was concerned with the views from 1-580 but stated that
Staff understands that the Planning Commission wants to see enhanced elevations on public
corridors and felt that the Applicant will produce nice elevations for the residential portion.
Mr. Baker reminded the Planning Commission that the residential component will come back for
the Site Development Review as a future agenda item. He stated that the Applicant is working
on addressing the elevations facing the freeway, and project identity, both of which were
discussed at the City Council Study Session in July. He added that the current proposal is for
three story buildings which are not overly tall.
Cm. Goel responded to Chair Bhuthimethee regarding the TOD. He stated that the Applicant
showed the picture of the boundaries which is considered ideal TOD, but the middle portion of
the project is the furthest. He felt that there are still a lot of units being built in the area, a lot of
foot traffic and that the City is missing an opportunity to create a daytime magnet that is not
there with residential. He did not feel comfortable recommending approval of a CEQA document
that will be referred to however many years it takes to complete. He felt it could be built in 2
years or it could be 10 years and then the Applicant will be pointing to a document that gave
them the entitlement. He felt that there will be a truth at some point and the ability to build this
project. He felt that there is a reason why the commercial is being submitted first.
111fanning Gmnrni�sion ,4,26,20(4
DRAFT DRAFT
Mr. Baker stated that the Development Agreement (DA) includes language regarding the timing
of the project to ensure that the commercial as well as the residential will be built. He stated
that the DA states that the Applicant can only move so far with residential project before
showing progress on the commercial, the fact that the residential is not part of this submittal is
not indicative of the timing of the construction of the project, but is related to preparation of the
plans and moving the project forward.
Cm. Goel asked if the Applicant will move forward with the residential first.
Mr. Baker stated that he would defer to the Applicant on how they will phase the project;
however, if they want to move forward with residential first, they won't go very far because they
must build the commercial as well.
Cm. Goel asked what percentage the DA requires.
Mr. Baker stated they must receive occupancy of buildings 400, 5007 6007 700 and 800 by the
time they reach the 190th residential building permit. He felt that the Applicant would need to
build concurrently in order to meet that requirement.
Cm. Goel asked if that is a trigger that binds them as opposed to helping the Applicant. He also
asked who brought up that issue.
Mr. Baker stated that it is a trigger that ensures that commercial is built before the residential.
He answered that the Staff, working with the Applicant, and discussing the issue with the City
Council.
Mr. Baker mentioned two edits need to be made to the approval documents and he wanted to
discuss the voting.
Ms. Bascom stated that a statement needs to be added to the PD Ordinance that states that this
PD Ordinance supersedes and replaces any previous PD Ordinances. Also, in the resolutions,
in the first "Whereas" it references Zoning Ordinance Amendments in addition to the Planned
Development Rezone, the text that references Zoning Ordinance Amendments will be deleted.
Mr. Baker suggested voting on each item individually and make motions for each
recommendation which he felt would make the process go as smoothly as possible.
Cm. O'Keefe stressed that he would ideally like to see the project have two story housing and
he'd also like to see some office space for small 15-30 employee businesses. He felt that would
be a more ideal project but looking at where the project has been and all the effort that has gone
into it, he did not want to hold up the project or vote against it.
Chair Bhuthimethee understood Cm. O'Keefe's concern but felt that there are three story
townhomes in less dense areas, but it seems appropriate because they will be by the freeway
and next to high density buildings and the scale of the property next to it is commercial office
space so it fits with that scale.
Cm. O'Keefe felt that if the housing were two-story, with higher retail buildings in the middle, it
would highlight the view from the overpass and make it more of a focal point.
111fanning Gamrni�sion ,4,26,20(4
DRAFT DRAFT
Cm. Kohli responded to Cm. O'Keefe's comments that the City has waited to bring forward a
project on this site and now have an opportunity to do it and this is a good enough project to
move forward. His concern was that whatever is built will remain for a long time, and in the last
year there has been an increase in commercial/retail development. He asked what if in two
years there was a project submitted that was Mixed Use with one third of the residential units,
and some being live-work units and more retail. He felt that the Planning Commission might say
that would be the ideal project that they had in mind but then it would be too late. He felt that
waiting for the right project is worth it.
Cm. Goel felt that the reality is that Dublin has very few vacant parcels for development and this
is prime property and there will be an opportunity to develop it, maybe not today or tomorrow but
soon. He felt that the Planning Commission will make the decision for Dublin's future.
Cm. Do asked if the project is approved as mixed use and the townhomes are built in three
stories, can the first floor as be used as a workplace.
Ms. Bascom answered that the PD ordinance would allow home occupations but the
homeowner could not run a retail storefront. Any home occupation that would be allowed in any
other neighborhood would be allowed in this development.
On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 3-2, with Cm. Goel and
Cm. Kohli voting no, the Planning Commission adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 14-47
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
UNDER CEQA FOR THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT
On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 3-2, with Cm. Goel and
Cm. Kohli voting no, the Planning Commission adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 14— 48
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
GENERAL PLAN AND THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR
THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT
On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 3-2, with Cm. Goel and
Cm. Kohli voting no, the Planning Commission adopted:
1111,�anntnfl Gmrtrni�sion ,4,26,20(4
DRAFT DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. 14-49
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE 27.5
ACRES AT 5144 AND 5344 MARTINELLI WAY TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING
DISTRICT AND APPROVING THE RELATED STAGE 1 AND 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT
On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 3-2, with Cm. Goel and
Cm. Kohli voting no and the correction mentioned, the Planning Commission adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 14-50
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND
STOCKBRIDGE/BHV EMERALD PLACE LAND COMPANY LLC RELATING TO
THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT
On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 3-2, with Cm. Goel and
Cm. Kohli voting no, the Planning Commission adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 14-51
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
PERMIT FOR THE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 8203 FOR
THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT
On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 3-2, with Cm. Goel and
Cm. Kohli voting no, the Planning Commission adopted:
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS — NONE
OTHER BUSINESS - NONE
1111,anntnfl Gmruni�sion ,4,26,20(4
DRAFT DRAFT
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).
ADJOURNMENT— The meeting was adjourned at 10:22:54 P
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Jeff Baker
Assistant Community Development Director
G:WINUTESI20141PLANNING COMMISSIONI08.26.14 DRAFT PC MINUTES.docx
RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 47
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
UNDER CEQA FOR THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT
PLPA-2013-00013
(APNs 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-00, 986-0033-006-00)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place LLC, has submitted a
Planning Application to construct six residential neighborhoods with 372 units in multiple
buildings and a complementary commercial district with approximately 37,000 square feet of
future retail and restaurant buildings with associated outdoor seating areas on a 27.5 acre site.
The proposal includes the approval of General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendments, Rezoning properties to a new Planned Development Zoning District and approval
of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review (Commercial
Buildings only), Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement, and certification of a Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, among other related actions. These planning and
implementing actions are collectively known as "The Green Mixed Use Project" or the "Project";
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 Project Site is in Eastern Dublin for which the City adopted the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan to provide a comprehensive planning
framework for future development of the area. In connection with this approval, the City certified
a program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168 (SCH: 91103064, Resolution 51-93,
and Addendum dated August 22, 1994, hereinafter "Eastern Dublin EIR" or "program EIR"),
which is available for review in the Planning Division and is incorporated herein by reference.
The program EIR was integral to the planning process and examined the direct and indirect
effects, cumulative impacts, broad policy alternatives, and areawide mitigation measures for
developing Eastern Dublin, including the Project Site; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant environmental
impacts and related mitigation measures, which the City adopted together with mitigation
findings and a Mitigation Monitoring Program (Resolution 53-93, incorporated herein by
reference), which mitigation measures and monitoring program continue to apply to
development in Eastern Dublin, including the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR also identified potentially significant environmental
impacts that could not be avoided by mitigation and for which the City adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA (Resolution 53-93); and
1
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study dated July 11, 2013 ("Initial Study") for the
Project consistent with Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections
15162 and 15163 in order to determine if a supplement to the Eastern Dublin EIR was required
under CEQA standards. The Initial Study determined that a supplement to the Eastern Dublin
EIR would be prepared to address certain environmental impacts of the Project. The Initial
Study also concluded that many of the environmental impacts of the Project were within the
scope of the Eastern Dublin EIR and that the certified Eastern Dublin EIR adequately described
and analyzed these impacts for CEQA purposes; and
WHEREAS, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation, dated July 12, 2013, to public
agencies and interested parties for consultation on the scope of the EIR. The City also
conducted a public scoping meeting on July 30, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft
SEIR) dated May 2014 for the proposed Project that reflected the City's independent judgment
and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project. The Draft SEIR is attached
as Exhibit A to this Resolution and is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR was circulated for public review from May 7, 2014 to June 3,
2014 (45 days); and
WHEREAS, the City received six comment letters from State, regional, and local
agencies and interested parties during the public review period. In accordance with the
requirements of CEQA, the City prepared written responses to all the comments received during
the public comment period. The City prepared a Final SEIR (that includes the Responses to
Comments), dated August 2014, for the proposed Project, which included an annotated copy of
each comment letter identifying specific comments, responses to each specific comment, and
clarifications and minor corrections to information presented in the Draft EIR. The Final EIR is
attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution and is incorporated herein by reference. The complete
The Green Mixed Use Project SEIR incorporates the Draft SEIR and the Final SEIR together.
The responses to comments provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the
environmental issues raised by the comments; and
WHEREAS, the City carefully reviewed the comments and written responses and
determined that the Final SEIR, including the clarifications and minor corrections to the Draft
SEIR, do not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft SEIR
under the standards in CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated August 26, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project for the Planning Commission and contained information on
the Final SEIR; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Staff Report, the Final SEIR,
including comments and responses, and certified Eastern Dublin EIR at a noticed public hearing
on August 26, 2014 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Final SEIR, including comments and responses, reflects the City's
independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts from the Project;
and
2
WHEREAS, the Final SEIR identified several potentially significant impacts that will be
reduced to a less than significant level with specified mitigation measures. Approval of the
project by the City Council will therefore require adoption of findings on impacts and mitigations
and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, the Final SEIR identified significant and unavoidable environmental impacts
of the project and approval of the project by the City Council will therefore require adoption of
Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
WHEREAS, the Final SEIR, Eastern Dublin EIR and all of the documents relating to the
Project are available for review in the City Planning Division at the Dublin City Hall, file PLPA-
2013-00013, during normal business hours. The location and custodian of the Final SEIR and
other documents that constitute the record of proceedings for the Project is the City of Dublin
Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, file PLPA-2012-
00031.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Dublin Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings and recommendations to the City Council on the Final SEIR and
the environmental review of the Project under CEQA:
A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.
B. The Final SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines
and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines.
C. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the information
contained in the Final SEIR, including the written comments received during the Draft
SEIR review period and the oral and written comments received at the public hearing,
prior to making its recommendation on the proposed Project.
D. The Final SEIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed Project. The Final SEIR provides information to
the decision-makers and the public on the environmental consequences of the proposed
Project.
E. The Final SEIR adequately describes the proposed Project, its significant environmental
impacts, mitigation measures and a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed
Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Dublin Planning Commission hereby recommends
that, prior to the approval of the Project, the City Council certify the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report as complete, adequate and in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA
Guidelines, and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. The Planning Commission further
recommends that the City Council make all required, mitigation and alternatives findings, adopt
a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, all in compliance with the requirements of CEQA.
3
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 26th day of August 2014 by the following
vote:
AYES: Bhuthimethee, O'Keefe, Do
NOES: Goel, Kohli
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Assistant Community Development Director
G:IPk20131PLPA-2013-00013 The Green GPA-SPA-PDIPC 08.26.141Att 7-PC Reso FSEIR.docx
4
RESOLUTION NO. 14— 48
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
GENERAL PLAN AND THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR
THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT
PLPA-2013-00013
(APNs 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-00, 986-0033-006-00)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place LLC, has submitted a
Planning Application to construct approximately 37,000 square feet of retail and restaurant
buildings with associated outdoor seating areas and six future residential neighborhoods with
372 units in multiple buildings on a 27.5 acre site. The proposal includes the approval of
General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Rezoning properties to
a new Planned Development Zoning District and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan, Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings only), Vesting Tentative
Map, Development Agreement, and certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report, among other related actions. These planning and implementing actions are collectively
known as "The Green Mixed Use Project" or the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, approval of the project as proposed requires that certain amendments be
made to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan so that the two documents are
consistent with the proposed mix of commercial and residential uses on the site; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation for
the project site is proposed to be amended from "General Commercial" to "Mixed Use" to enable
the construction of retail/restaurant uses in addition to Medium-High Density Residential uses
coordinated in a master-planned development on one project site. In addition, other provisions
of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are proposed to be amended to ensure
consistency with the proposed land use designation for this 27.5 acres; 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 Draft Supplement Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)
dated May 2014 for the proposed Project which reflected the City's independent judgment and
analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR was circulated from May 7, 2014 to June 23, 2014 (45 days)
for public comment; and
WHEREAS, comments received on the Draft SEIR were reviewed and responded to, and
the Final EIR (that contains the Response to Comments) dated August 2014 was prepared; and
WHEREAS, consistent with section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the City
obtained a contact list of local Native American tribes from the Native American Heritage
Commission and notified the tribes on the contact list of the opportunity to consult with the City
on the proposed General Plan Amendment. None of the contacted tribes requested a
consultation within the 90-day statutory consultation period and no further action is required
under section 65352.3; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated August 26, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project, including the General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendments, Rezoning properties to a new Planned Development Zoning District
and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review
(Commercial Buildings only), Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement, and certification
of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the
Project, including the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, on
August 26, 2014 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Final SEIR, all above-referenced
reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve amendments to the General Plan to reflect changes resulting from approval of
the project, as follows:
• Amend Figure 1-1 (Land Use Map) to change the land use designation for the
project site from "General Commercial" to "Mixed Use"; and
• Modify Table 2.2 (Land Use Development Potential: Eastern Extended Planning
Area) to reflect the change in land use designation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve amendments to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to reflect changes resulting
from approval of the project, as follows:
• Amend Figure 4.1 (Land Use Map) to change the land use designation for the
project site from "General Commercial" to "Mixed Use";
• Modify Table 4.1 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary);
• Modify Table 4.2 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Population and Employment
Summary);
• Modify Table 4.3 (Projected Jobs/Housing Balance); and
• Modify Table 4.11 (Hacienda Gateway Subarea Development Potential).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council find the amendments are in the public interest, promote general health, safety and
welfare, and that the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as so amended, will
remain internally consistent.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 26th day of August 2014 by the following
vote:
2
AYES: Bhuthimethee, O'Keefe, Do
NOES: Goel, Kohli
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Assistant Community Development Director
G:IPk20131PLPA-2013-00013 The Green GPA-SPA-PDIPC 08.26.141Att 2-PC Reso SP and GPA.docx
3
RESOLUTION NO. 14-49
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE 27.5
ACRES AT 5144 AND 5344 MARTINELLI WAY TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING
DISTRICT AND APPROVING THE RELATED STAGE 1 AND 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT
PLPA-2013-00013
(APNs 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-00, 986-0033-006-00)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place LLC, has submitted a Planning
Application to construct approximately 37,000 square feet of retail and restaurant buildings with
associated outdoor seating areas and six future residential neighborhoods with 372 units in multiple
buildings on a 27.5 acre site. The proposal includes the approval of General Plan Amendments,
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Rezoning properties to a new Planned Development
Zoning District and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development
Review (Commercial Buildings only), Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement, and
certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, among other related actions.
These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as "The Green Mixed Use Project"
or the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the implementation of the development project requires that the project site be
rezoned to a new Planned Development Zoning District with approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage
2 Development Plan; 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 Draft Supplement Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) dated
August 2014 for the proposed Project which reflected the City's independent judgment and analysis
of the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project,
including the Planned Development Rezone and a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan on
August 26, 2014 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated August 26, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project, including the General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendments, Rezoning properties to a new Planned Development Zoning District and approval
of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review (Commercial
Buildings only), Vesting Tentative Map, and certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report, for the Project; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-47
recommending that the City Council certify the Final SEIR for the project, which Resolution is
incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours;
and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-48
recommending that the City Council approve the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan amendments, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at
City Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report, all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its
independent judgment prior to making a 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 Dublin Planning Commission does hereby adopt a
Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance (Attached as Exhibit A) rezoning
27.5 acres at 5144 and 5344 Martinelli Drive to a Planned Development Zoning District and approve
the related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for The Green Mixed Use Project, based on
findings in the attached Ordinance, including but not limited to, that the Planned Development zoning
and project as a whole is consistent and in conformance with the General Plan as proposed, is
consistent with the purpose and intent of the Planned Development zoning district, and that
development of the proposed project will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future
development in the surrounding area.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 26th day of August 2014 by the following vote:
AYES: Bhuthimethee, O'Keefe, Do
NOES: Goel, Kohli
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Assistant Community Development Director
G:1PM20131PLPA-2013-00013 The Green GPA-SPA-PDIPC 08.26.14Ott xx-PC Reso PD Ord.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 14-50
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND
STOCKBRIDGE/BHV EMERALD PLACE LAND COMPANY LLC RELATING TO
THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT
PLPA-2013-00013
(APNS 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-00, 986-0033-006-00)
WHEREAS, a request has been made by Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place Land
Company LLC ("Applicant") to enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Dublin for
the property known as The Green Mixed Use Project site, which includes properties identified
by Assessor Parcel Numbers 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-00, and 986-0033-006-00,
encompassing approximately 27.5 acres; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant is proposing to obtain approvals for a development project that
includes the construction of six residential neighborhoods with 372 units in multiple buildings
and a complementary commercial district with approximately 37,000 square feet of future retail
and restaurant buildings with associated outdoor seating areas and a full range of site
improvements; and
WHEREAS, the project is the subject of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(SEIR), State Clearinghouse No. 2013072032. On August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission
approved Resolution 14-xx, recommending that the City Council certify the Final SEIR for the
project, and adopt CEQA findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. The Development Agreement was part of the
Project analyzed in the SEIR and the impacts of the activities under the Development
Agreement were analyzed in the SEIR; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Development Agreement is attached to this Resolution as
Exhibit A-1; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
proposed Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of the public hearing was given in all respects as required by
law; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning
Commission recommend that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving the Development
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and
considered all reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Dublin Planning Commission
does hereby recommend that the City Council make the following findings and determinations
regarding the proposed Development Agreement:
1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general
land uses and programs specified and contained in the City's General Plan, and in the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan in that: (a) the Development Agreement incorporates the objectives,
policies, general land uses and programs in the General Plan and Specific Plan (as amended);
and (b) the project is consistent with the fiscal policies of the General Plan and Specific Plan
with respect to the provision of infrastructure and public services.
2. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the
regulations prescribed for, the land use districts in which the real property is located because the
Development Agreement does not amend the uses or regulations in the applicable land use
district.
3. The Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general
welfare, and good land use policies in that the Developer's project will implement land use
guidelines set forth in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the General Plan as articulated in
Resolution No. xx-14, amending the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, adopted by the City Council
on ) 2014.
4. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and
general welfare in that the Developer's proposed project will proceed in accordance with all the
programs and policies of the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and future Project
Approvals and Conditions of Approval.
5. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of
property or the preservation of property values in that the project will be consistent with the
General Plan (as amended), the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (as amended), and future Project
Approvals.
6. The Development Agreement 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City of Dublin Planning
Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the Ordinance, attached as
Exhibit A, approving the Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and
Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place Land Company LLC related to The Green Mixed Use Project.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26 n day of August 2014.
AYES: Bhuthimethee, O'Keefe, Do
NOES: Goel, Kohli
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Page 2 of 3
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Assistant Community Development Director
G:IPk20131PLPA-2013-00013 The Green GPA-SPA-PDIPC 08.26.141Att 6-PC Reso DA.docx
Page 3 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 14-51
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
PERMIT FOR THE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 8203 FOR
THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT
PLPA-2013-00013 (APNs 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-00, 986-0033-006-00)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place LLC, has submitted a
Planning Application to construct approximately 37,000 square feet of retail and restaurant
buildings with associated outdoor seating areas and six future residential neighborhoods with
372 units in multiple buildings on a 27.5 acre site. The proposal includes the approval of
General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Rezoning properties to
a new Planned Development Zoning District and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan, Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings only), Vesting Tentative
Map, Development Agreement, and certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report, among other related actions. These planning and implementing actions are collectively
known as "The Green Mixed Use Project" or the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the current request includes Vesting Tentative Map 8203 to subdivide the
entire 27.5 acre parcel, however, the proposed Site Development Review is only for the
commercial component of the project. The Site Development Review application for the
residential buildings is not being considered at this time and will be reviewed by the Planning
Commission at a later date; and
WHEREAS, the project site is located within a Planned Development Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the Project Plans, attached as Exhibit A, illustrate the site layout and building
elevations for the eight future Commercial Buildings on the project site, which comprise
approximately 37,000 square feet of future retail and restaurant buildings with associated
outdoor seating areas, which are permitted by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General
Plan, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the Project Plans also illustrate the proposed subdivision of a single 27.5
acre parcel into 96 separate parcels (1 commercial parcel, 60 residential parcels, and 35 parcels
for future streets, parking, and common areas, ranging in size from 0.1 acres to 5.8 acres; and
WHEREAS, the Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings only) and Vesting
Tentative Map application collectively defines this "Project" and is available and on file in the
Community Development Department; 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 Draft Supplement Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)
dated August 2014 for the proposed Project which reflected the City's independent judgment
and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated August 26, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project, including the General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendments, Rezoning properties to a new Planned Development Zoning District
and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review
(Commercial Buildings only), Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement, and certification
of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-47
recommending that the City Council certify the Final SEIR for the project, which Resolution is
incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business
hours; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-48
recommending that the City Council approve the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan amendments, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available
for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-49
recommending that the City Council approve the proposed Rezoning of properties to a new
Planned Development Zoning District and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan for the Project, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and
available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-50
recommending that the City Council approve the proposed Development Agreement for the
Project, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall
during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on
August 26, 2014 for this project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be
heard; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by
law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission
recommend that the City Council approve the Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings
only) and Vesting Tentative Map application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use independent judgment and
considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Dublin does hereby make the following Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings only)
2
findings and determinations regarding The Green Mixed Use Project on approximately 27.5
acres at 5144 and 5344 Martinelli Way:
A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.104 (Site Development
Review) of the Zoning Ordinance, with the General Plan, and any applicable Specific
Plans and design guidelines because: 1) The project provides an orderly, attractive
and harmonious development compatible with the site's environmental constraints
and with surrounding properties and neighborhoods. The development gives
thoughtful consideration to building location, architectural and landscape design and
theme, vehicular and pedestrian access and on-site circulation, parking and traffic
impact. It complies with development regulations and the requirements of the zoning
district, as required by Section 8.104.020.A of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; 2) the
project is utilizing traditional building forms with contemporary, high-quality materials
and finishes in compliance with the design guidelines of the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan and Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan; 3) the
project will provide unique, varied, and distinct commercial opportunities, which will
serve to activate the area and provide services to existing and future residents and
workers in the vicinity; 4) the proposed project will conform to the density, design, and
allowable uses as stated in the Planned Development Zoning as required by Section
8.104.020.13 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; 5) the project includes streetscape
enhancements to complement those already in place; and 6) the project is consistent
with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as amended.
B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance because.
1) The architecture and landscape design for the project provides an appropriate
pedestrian scale with commercial retail uses, restaurants and the proposed layout of
buildings, landscaping and parking are well-suited to the uses; 2) the overall design of
the project is consistent with the design requirements of the Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan; 3) the proposed development is compatible with the General Plan
Land Use designation of Mixed Use (as amended) which allows for a retail and
restaurant uses which the proposed project will achieve; and 4) the proposed project
meets the intent of the Dublin General Plan which discourages projects that do not
relate well to the surrounding developments and the proposed project is compatible
with the surrounding neighborhoods that includes office, residential, and commercial
uses in the vicinity of transit and transportation opportunities.
C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding
properties, and the lot(s) in which the project is proposed because. 1) The
architecture and landscape design for the project provides a unique, yet appropriate,
pedestrian scale with commercial retail uses, restaurants and the proposed layout of
buildings, landscaping and parking are well-suited to the uses; 2) the overall design of
the project is consistent with the design requirements of the Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan; 3) the proposed development is compatible with the General Plan
Land Use designation of Mixed Use (as amended) which allows for a retail and
restaurant uses which the proposed project will achieve; and 4) the proposed project
meets the intent of the Dublin General Plan which discourages projects that do not
relate well to the surrounding developments and the proposed project is compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood that includes office, residential, and commercial
uses in the vicinity of transit and transportation opportunities.
3
D. The subject site is suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development
because. 1) the project will provide the desired mix of retail stores, eating and
drinking establishments, and associated uses that conform to the Mixed Use land use
designation of the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (as
amended); 2) the project provides for its own infrastructure and required services and
is designed to include sufficient vehicular and pedestrian access, with parking to
support the uses; and 3) the proposed density of the site is consistent with the
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (as amended).
E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed because: 1) the
project site is relatively flat; 2) the major roadway and utility infrastructure to serve the
site already exists, and 3) future approval of grading and improvement plans will
enable the site to be modified to suit the project, which will be developed for the site in
accordance with City policies and regulations.
F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the design,
site layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, screening of
unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar elements result in a
project that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other
developments in the vicinity because. 1) the architectural style and materials will be
unique to this project, yet compatible and complementary to the contemporary
architectural style, colors, and materials being utilized on other commercial projects in
the City; 2) the project is utilizing traditional building forms with contemporary, high-
quality materials and finishes in compliance with the design guidelines of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan; 3) the size and scale of the development will be similar to other
retail commercial shopping centers in the project vicinity; and 4) unsightly uses (e.g.
waste facilities, parking lots) shall be screened with appropriate materials that are
architecturally compatible with the building design.
G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and
coverage of plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the
project to ensure visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for
the public because. 1) the Preliminary Landscape Plan for the project site emphasizes
the creation of a comfortable pedestrian environment that will include generous
sidewalks along the main north-south drive aisle adorned with street trees and
pedestrian-scaled lighting; 2) landscaping will be provided throughout the parking
fields both at the front and rear of the project buildings; and 3) the project perimeter
and interior landscaping is consistent with other commercial development in the
vicinity and conforms to the requirements of the City's Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance.
H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure the proper circulation for bicyclist,
pedestrians, and automobiles because. 1) all infrastructure including driveways,
pathways, sidewalks, and street lighting have been reviewed for conformance with
City policies, regulations, and best practices and have been designed with multi-
modal travel in mind; and 2) development of this project will conform to the major
public improvements already installed allowing patrons the safe and efficient use of
these facilities.
4
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does
hereby make the following Vesting Tentative Map findings and determinations regarding Vesting
Tentative Map 8203 for The Green Mixed Use Project:
A. Vesting Tentative Map 8203 is consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision
regulations and related ordinances.
B. The design and improvements of Vesting Tentative Map 8203 are consistent with the
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan objectives, polices, general land uses,
and programs as they relate to the subject property in that it is the subdivision of three
parcels that currently comprise the 27.5 acre project site into 96 parcels: one 5.8 acre
commercial parcel, 60 residential parcels with multiple units in each building/parcel,
and 35 street/circulation/parking area parcels.
C. Vesting Tentative Map 8203 is consistent with the General Provisions and
Development Standards for the Planned Development Zoning District for The Green
Mixed Use Project (PLPA-2013-00013), and therefore is consistent with the City of
Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
D. The project site is located adjacent to major roads, including Hacienda Drive,
Martinelli Way, and Arnold Road, on approximately 27.5± acres of land. The
topography of the property is generally flat. The site is physically suitable for the type
and intensity of the proposed commercial/residential mixed use development that is
proposed.
E. Vesting Tentative Map 8203 will not cause environmental damage or substantially
injure fish or wildlife of their habitat or cause public health concerns because the
proposed project is for the subdivision of the land and not for any physical
improvements.
F. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public
at large, or access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The
City Engineer has reviewed the map and title report and has not found any conflicting
easements of this nature.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does
hereby recommend that the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Map 8203 and Site
Development Review (Commercial Buildings only) for The Green Mixed Use Project, as shown
on plans submitted by Stockbridge/BHV, stamped received August 11, 2014, subject to the
conditions included below.
5
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance
of building permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Department review
and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for
monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval. [PL.] Planning, [B] Building, [PO] Police,
[PW] Public Works [P&CS] Parks & Community Services, [ADM] Administration/City Attorney,
[FIN] Finance, [F] Alameda County Fire Department, [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District,
[CO] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, [Z7] Zone 7. Anything to the
contrary in these Conditions of Approval notwithstanding, if the City enters into a Development
Agreement with the project sponsor, if any term of these conditions of approval are in conflict
with the provisions of the Development Agreement, the Development Agreement shall take
precedence and shall control.
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
GENERAL CONDITIONS— SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW and VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 8203
1. Approval. This Site Development Review (Commercial only) and PL Ongoing
Vesting Tentative Map 8203 approval for The Green Mixed Use
Project establishes the detailed design concepts and regulations for
the project. Development pursuant to this Site Development Review
(Commercial only)/Vesting Tentative Map approval generally shall
conform to the project plans submitted by Stockbridge/BHV dated
received August 11, 2014 and on file in the Community Development
Department, and other plans, text, and diagrams — including the
color and material board — relating to this Site Development Review
(Commercial only)/Vesting Tentative Map approval, unless modified
by the Conditions of Approval contained herein.
2. Permit Expiration. Approval of this Site Development PL One year After
Review/Vesting Tentative Map approval shall be valid for one (1) Effective Date
year from the approval of the project by the Planning Commission or or as specified
as identified in the project Development Agreement. This approval in the Project
shall be null and void in the event the approved use fails to be Development
established within the prescribed time. Commencement of the use Agreement
means the establishment of use pursuant to the Permit approval or,
demonstrating substantial progress toward commencing such use. If
there is a dispute as to whether the Permit has expired, the City may
hold a noticed public hearing to determine the matter. Such a
determination may be processed concurrently with revocation
proceedings in appropriate circumstances. If a Permit expires, a
new application must be made and processed according to the
requirements of this Ordinance.
3. Time Extension. Unless otherwise addressed in the Project PL One Year
Development Agreement, the original approving decision-maker Following
may, upon the Applicant's written request for an extension of Expiration
approval prior to expiration, upon the determination that all Date
Conditions of Approval remain adequate and all applicable findings
of approval will continue to be met, grant an extension of the
approval for a period not to exceed six (6) months. Subsequent six
month extensions may be granted at the discretion of the
Community Development Director. All time extension requests shall
be noticed and a public hearing shall be held before the original
hearing body.
6
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
4. Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall operate this use in PL On-going
compliance with the Conditions of Approval of this Site Development
Review, the approved plans and the regulations established in the
Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions specified
may be subject to enforcement action.
5. Effective Date. The approval is contingent on the City Council PL Ongoing
taking the following actions related to the project:
1. Certifying a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
and Adoption of Environmental Findings under CEQA for the
project;
2. Adopting a Resolution amending the General Plan and the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for the project;
3. Adopting an Ordinance approving a Planned Development
Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan
for the project; and
4. Adopting an Ordinance approving a Development Agreement for
the project.
If the above actions do not take place, the SDR/Tentative Map
approval is null and void.
This approval shall not take effect until all the City Council approvals
under items 1-4 are in full force and effect.
6. Revocation of Permit. The Site Development Review/Vesting PL On-going
Tentative Map approval shall be revocable for cause in accordance
with Section 8.96.020.1 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any
violation of the terms or conditions of this permit shall be subject to
citation.
7. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The Applicant/ Various Building
Developer shall comply with applicable City of Dublin Fire Prevention Permit
Bureau, Dublin Public Works Department, Dublin Building Issuance
Department, Dublin Police Services, Alameda County Flood Control
District Zone 7, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, Alameda
County Public and Environmental Health, Dublin San Ramon
Services District and the California Department of Health Services
requirements and standard conditions. Prior to issuance of building
permits or the installation of any improvements related to this
project, the Developer shall supply written statements from each
such agency or department to the Planning Department, indicating
that all a plicable conditions required have been or will be met.
8. Required Permits. Developer shall obtain all permits required by PW Building
other agencies including, but not limited to Alameda County Permit
Environmental Health, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Issuance
Conservation District (Zone 7), California Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Caltrans, or other regional/state agencies as required by law.
Copies of the permits shall be provided to the Public Works
De artment.
9. Fees. Except as otherwise provided in the Development Various Building
Agreement, the Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable fees in Permit
effect at the time of building permit issuance, including, but not Issuance
limited to, Planning fees, Building fees, Traffic Impact Fees, TVTC
fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District fees, Public Facilities fees,
Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, Fire Facilities
Impact fees, Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
(Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; or any other fee that
may be adopted and applicable.
10. Indemnification. The Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold ADM On-going
harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees
from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its
agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an
approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board,
Planning Commission, City Council, Community Development
Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee,
or agency of the City to the extent such actions are brought within
the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or
other applicable law; provided, however, that The Developer's duty
to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the
City's promptly notifying The Developer of any said claim, action, or
proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such
actions or proceedings.
11. Clarification of Conditions. In the event that there needs to be PW On-going
clarification to the Conditions of Approval, the Community
Development Director and the City Engineer have the authority to
clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Developer
without going to a public hearing. The Director of Community
Development and the City Engineer also have the authority to make
minor modifications to these conditions without going to a public
hearing in order for the Applicant/Developer to fulfill needed
improvements or mitigations resulting from impacts to this project.
12. Clean-up. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for clean- PL On-going
up and disposal of project related trash to maintain a safe, clean,
and litter-free site.
13. Modifications. Modifications or changes to this Site Development PL On-going
Review/Vesting Tentative Map approval may be considered by the
Community Development Director in compliance with Chapter 8.104
of the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the Subdivision
Ordinance.
14. Archaeology. Should any prehistoric, cultural, or historic artifacts PL During
be exposed during excavation and construction operations, the Construction
Department of Community Development shall be notified and work
shall cease immediately until an archaeologist, who is certified by
the Society of California Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of
Professional Archaeology (SOPA), is consulted to evaluate the
significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures,
if deemed necessary, prior to resuming ground breaking construction
activities. Standardized procedures for evaluating accidental finds
and discovery of human remains shall be followed as prescribed in
Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the California Environmental
Quality Act Guidelines. Compliance with this condition required
throe hoot construction.
15. Equipment Screening. All electrical equipment, fire risers, and/or PL Building
mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view by Permit
landscaping and/or architectural features. Any roof-mounted Issuance
equipment shall be completely screened from adjacent street view and
by materials architecturally compatible with the building and to the Through
satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The Building Completion/
Permit plans shall show the location of all equipment and screening On-going
for review and approval by the Director of Community Development.
8
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
16. Public Art. The Applicant/Developer intends to satisfy the City's PL, Parks Public Art Plan
requirement for Public Art through the installation of art pieces on the shall be
project site, which could potentially also include installations on the developed
Persimmon Place project site (north of Martinelli Way). The prior to
Applicant/Developer will coordinate the public art project for the issuance of
project with the City's Heritage and Cultural Arts Manager in the first
compliance with Chapter 8.58 of the Zoning Ordinance. Building
Permit and all
installations
shall be
complete prior
to occupancy
of the first
building on the
project site
17. Inclusionary Housing. The Applicant/Developer will satisfy the PL In accordance
requirements of Chapter 8.68 of the Zoning Ordinance (Inclusionary with the
Zoning Regulations) in accordance with the Project Development Project
Agreement. Development
Agreement
18. Colors. The exterior colors of the buildings shall be in compliance PL Occupancy
with the Color and Material Board approved with the Project Plans.
If paint is utilized, the Applicant shall paint small portions of the
building the approved colors for review and approval by the Director
of Community Development prior to painting the entire buildings,
whose a proval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
19. Approval of Design Details Prior to Full Installation. Details of PL Building or
the following site features and improvements shall be reviewed and Sitework
approved by the Community Development Director prior to permit Permit
issuance: Issuance
1. Amenities to be installed in the plaza/outdoor spaces next to
and between buildings (e.g. on the north side of Building 400)
that are intended to create a comfortable pedestrian
environment. Amenities could be hanging lights, additional
landscaping, or other art/design elements that serve to frame
and enclose the space.
2. Bollard/post element to be installed on the northern edge of the
commercial area along Martinelli and a portion of Hacienda.
3. Bicycle lockers and bike racks.
4. Paving pattern, colors, material for pedestrian pathways on
sidewalks, through the parking areas, and in the commercial
and residential plaza areas.
5. Enclosure details for outdoor dining/seating areas.
6. Construction and material details for trash enclosures.
20. Outdoor Furniture. Outdoor furniture (including tables and chairs PL Ongoing
for outdoor seating/eating areas) shall be suitable for all-weather
conditions and made of high-quality, durable materials. Umbrellas
shall have no more than two colors. Logos, or the name of the
restaurant establishment, may be printed on the umbrella canvas,
but logo for products sold are prohibited.
21. Outdoor Dining/Seating Areas. Outdoor dining/seating areas not PL Ongoing
shown on the Project Plans may be permitted through a Site
Development Review Waiver. Outdoor dining/seating areas shown
on the Project Plans do not need any additional review/approval
9
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
except approval of any enclosure details. Outdoor dining/seating
areas (including furniture and barriers/enclosures) shall be
maintained in good condition at all times by the owners/operators of
the associated dining establishment or the retail center property
management.
22. Master Sign Program. A Master Sign Program will be reviewed PL Installation of
and approved at the Staff-level for all project-related signage any project-
including, but not limited to, wall signs, monument signs, community related
identification signage, address signage, directional signage, parking signage
signage, speed limit signage, retail tenant signage, and other
signage deemed necessary by the City. Any wall and monument
signs shown in the Project Plans are for illustrative purposes only
and the full details of the sign sizes, materials, and construction shall
be shown in the separate sign package.
23. Construction Trailer. The Applicant/Developer shall obtain a PL Establishment
Temporary Use Permit prior to the establishment of any construction of the
trailer, storage shed, or container units on the project site. temporary use
24. Final Building and Site Improvement Plans shall be reviewed and PL Issuance of
approved by the Community Development Department staff prior to Building
the issuance of a building permit. All such plans shall insure: Permits
a. That standard non-residential security requirements as
established by the Dublin Police Department are provided.
b. That ramps, special parking spaces, signing, and other
appropriate physical features for the disabled, are provided
throughout the site for all publicly used facilities.
c. That continuous concrete curbing is provided for all parking
stalls, if necessary.
d. That exterior lighting of the building and site is not directed onto
adjacent properties and the light source is shielded from direct
offsite viewing.
e. That all mechanical equipment, including air conditioning
condensers, are architecturally screened from view, and that
electrical transformers are either underground, architecturally
screened, or screened by landscape of an adequate size.
Electrical and gas meters shall be screened to the greatest
degree possible.
f. That all vents, gutters, downspouts, flashings, etc., are painted
to match the color of adjacent surface.
g. That all materials and colors are to be as approved by the
Dublin Community Development Department. Once constructed
or installed, all improvements are to be maintained in
accordance with the approved plans. Any changes, which affect
the exterior character, shall be resubmitted to the Dublin
Community Development Department for approval.
h. That all exterior architectural elements visible from view and not
detailed on the plans be finished in a style and in materials in
harmony with the exterior of the building. All materials shall
wrap to the inside corners and terminate at a perpendicular wall
plane.
i. That all other public agencies that require review of the project
10
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
are supplied with copies of the final building and site plans and
that compliance is obtained with at least their minimum Code
requirements.
25. Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Applicant/ Developer shall PL On-going
comply with The Green Mixed Use Project Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified by City Council
Resolution xx-xx, including all mitigation measures, action programs,
and implementation measures contained therein. The FSEIR is on
file with the Community Development Department.
26. Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans. Final landscape plans, PL Landscape
including utility and tree coordination plans, layout plans, irrigation plan approval
plans, planting plans, and guarantees, shall be reviewed and and
approved by the City Engineer and the Community Development installation
Director prior to the issuance of the building permit. Plans shall be
generally consistent with the layout of the Preliminary Landscape
drawings included in the Project Plan Set prepared by Smith + Smith
Landscape Architects, received by the Planning Division on August
11, 2014, except as modified by the Conditions listed below or as
required by the Community Development Director to address specific
site constraints or conditions. At the Final Landscape Plan stage,
the tree and plant material selections shall be reviewed in detail as
the areas of the site needed for bioretention/water quality are
finalized through the development of detailed Site Improvement
Plans. Particular attention shall be paid to ensuring that plant
material shown in bioretention areas are well-suited for those soil
conditions. Alternative species shall be considered to ensure
compatibility with the contemporary look and feel of the building
architecture and overall design aesthetic.
The Final Landscape Plans shall ensure:
a. That plant material is utilized which will be capable of healthy
growth within the given range of soil and climate.
b. That proposed landscape screening is of a height and density
so that it provides a positive visual impact within three years
from the time of planting.
c. All trees that are on the perimeter of the project site and along
the main north-south drive aisle shall be 24" box minimum, with
at least 30% at 36" box or greater. Other trees located
throughout the parking lot and the project site shall be 15 gallon
and 24" box. All shrubs shall be 5 gallon minimum. All
groundcover shall be 1 gallon in size. These standards shall be
met unless a superior design concept is proposed by the
Applicant and accepted by the City.
d. That concrete curbing is to be used at the edges of all planters
and paving surfaces where applicable.
e. That all cut and fill slopes conform to the Tentative map and
conditions detailed in the Site Development Review plan set.
f. That a guarantee from the owners or contractors shall be
required guaranteeing all shrubs and ground cover, all trees,
and the irrigation system for one year.
That a permanent maintenance agreement on all landscaping will
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
be required from the owner insuring regular irrigation,
fertilization and weed abatement, if applicable.
h. The Layout Plan shall illustrate the design of all hardscape
elements including walls, fences, gates, light locations, at grade
or above grade utility boxes and vaults, walkways and
decorative pavement.
i. The Irrigation Plan shall utilize low flow, durable, irrigation
equipment and the design shall comply with Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance (WELO) requirements.
j. Construction details of raised planters, walkways, paths,
benches, walls, fences and other architectural features as
appropriate to the project.
k. All pole light locations shall be coordinated with the placement
of trees to eliminate conflicts between the trees and lights and
so that the light is not blocked by the growth of the trees.
27. Landscaping at southern property line (adjacent to 1-580). The PL Approval of
final Landscape Plan shall identify vine, groundcover, and shrub Landscape
planting adjacent to the new fence at the property line that will grow Plans
up the fence and mature quickly to provide visual screening between
the freeway and the project.
28. Landscaping at Street/Drive Aisle Intersections. Landscaping PL Ongoing
shall not obstruct the sight distance of motorists, pedestrians or
bicyclists. Except for trees, landscaping (and/or landscape
structures such as walls) at drive aisle intersections shall not be
taller than 30 inches above the curb. Landscaping shall be kept at a
minimum height and fullness giving patrol officers and the general
public surveillance capabilities of the area.
29. Plant Clearances. All trees planted shall meet the following PL Landscape
clearances: plan approval
a. 6' from the face of building walls or roof eaves. and
b. 7' from fire hydrants, storm drains, sanitary sewers and/or gas installation
lines.
c. 5' from top of wing of driveways, mailboxes, water, telephone
and/or electrical mains
d. 15' from stop signs, street or curb sign returns.
e. 15' from either side of street lights.
30. Lighting. The Applicant/Developer shall prepare a photometric plan PL, PW, Building
to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Engineer, Director of PO Permit
Community Development, the City's Consulting Landscape Architect Issuance
and Dublin Police Services. The photometric plan shall show lighting
levels which takes into consideration poles, low walls and other
obstructions. Exterior lighting shall be provided within the surface
parking lot and on the building, and shall be of a design and
placement so as not to cause glare onto adjoining properties,
businesses or to vehicular traffic. Lighting used after daylight hours
shall be adequate to provide for security needs. The parking lot
lights shall be designed to eliminate any pockets of high and low
illuminated areas. Prior to Occupancy, the Applicant shall request an
inspection of the lighting levels in the structure to determine if
lighting is sufficient. If additional lights are required to be installed to
meet the 1.0 foot-candle requirement, the Applicant shall do so prior
to Occupancy.
31. Landscaping. Applicant/Developer shall construct all landscaping PL, PW Landscape
within the site and along the project frontage to the street curb and plan approval
utter. and
12
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
installation
32. Backflow Prevention Devices. The Landscape Plan shall show the PL, PW, F Landscape
location of all backflow prevention devises. The location and plan approval
screening of the backflow prevention devices shall be reviewed and and
approved by City staff. installation
33. Root Barriers and Tree Staking. The Final Landscape Plans shall PL, PW Landscape
provide details showing root barriers and tree staking will be installed plan approval
which meet current City specifications. and
installation
34. Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. The Applicant/ Developer PL Landscape
shall submit written documentation to the Public Works Department plan approval
(in the form of a Landscape Documentation Package and other and
required documents) that the development conforms to the City's installation
Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance.
35. Building Codes and Ordinances. All project construction shall B Through
conform to all building codes and ordinances in effect at the time of Completion
building ermit.
36. Retaining Walls. All retaining walls over 30 inches in height and in B Through
a walkway shall be provided with guardrails. All retaining walls over Completion
24 inches with a surcharge or 36 inches without a surcharge shall
obtain ermits and inspections from the Building & Safety Division.
37. Phased Occupancy Plan. If occupancy is requested to occur in B Occupancy of
phases, then all physical improvements within each phase pertaining any affected
to a particular building within the phase shall be required to be building
completed prior to occupancy of any such building within that phase
except for items specifically excluded in an approved Phased
Occupancy Plan, or minor handwork items, approved by the
Department of Community Development. The Phased Occupancy
Plan shall be submitted to the Directors of Community Development
and Public Works for review and approval a minimum of 45 days
prior to the request for occupancy of any building covered by said
Phased Occupancy Plan. Any phasing shall provide for adequate
vehicular access to all parcels in each phase, and shall substantially
conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. No
individual building shall be occupied until the immediately adjoining
area is finished, safe, accessible, and provided with all reasonable
expected services and amenities, and separated from remaining
additional construction activity. Subject to approval of the Director of
Community Development, the completion of landscaping may be
deferred due to inclement weather or potential harm or disruption
due to nearby construction activities of later phases with the posting
of a bond for the value of the deferred landscaping and associated
improvements.
38. Building Permits. To apply for building permits, B Issuance of
Applicant/Developer shall submit five (5) sets of construction plans Building
to the Building & Safety Division for plan check. Each set of plans Permits
shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of
Approval. The notations shall clearly indicate how all Conditions of
Approval will or have been complied with. Construction plans will
not be accepted without the annotated resolutions attached to each
set of plans. Applicant/Developer will be responsible for obtaining
the approvals of all participation non-City agencies prior to the
issuance of building permits.
39. Construction Drawings. Construction plans shall be fully B Issuance of
13
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
dimensioned (including building elevations) accurately drawn building
(depicting all existing and proposed conditions on site), and permits
prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer.
All structural calculations shall be prepared and signed by a
California licensed Architect or Engineer. The site plan, landscape
plan and details shall be consistent with each other.
40. Air Conditioning Units. Air conditioning units and ventilation ducts B Occupancy of
shall be screened from public view with materials compatible to the Unit
main building.
41. Temporary Fencing. Temporary Construction fencing shall be B Through
installed along the perimeter of all work under construction. Completion
42. Addressing B
a) Provide a site plan with the City of Dublin's address grid Prior to
overlaid on the plans (1 to 30 scale). Highlight all exterior release of
door openings on plans (front, rear, etc.). The site plan shall addresses
include a single large format page showing the entire project
and individual sheets for each building. 3 copies on full size
sheets and 5 copies reduced sheets.
b) Address signage shall be provided as per the Dublin Prior to
Commercial Security Code. permitting
c) Address will be required on all doors leading to the exterior of Prior to
the building. Addresses shall be illuminated and be able to be
seen from the street, 4 inches in height minimum. occupancy
43. Engineer Observation. The Engineer of record shall be retained to B Scheduling
provide observation services for all components of the lateral and the final
vertical design of the building, including nailing, hold-downs, straps, frame
shear, roof diaphragm and structural frame of building. A written inspection
report shall be submitted to the City Inspector prior to scheduling the
final frame inspection.
44. Foundation. Geotechnical Engineer for the soils report shall review B Permit
and approve the foundation design. A letter shall be submitted to issuance
the Building Division on the approval.
45. Electronic File: The applicant/developer shall submit all building B Issuance of
drawings and specifications for this project in an electronic format to the final
the satisfaction of the Building Official prior to the issuance of occupancy
building permits. Additionally, all revisions made to the building
plans during the project shall be incorporated into an "As Built"
electronic file and submitted prior to the issuance of the final
occupancy.
46. Construction Trailer. Due to size and nature of the development, B Ongoing
the applicant/developer, shall provide a construction trailer with all
hook ups or sufficient space within a construction trailer for use by
City Inspection personnel during the time of construction as
determined necessary by the Building Official. In the event that the
City has their own construction trailer, the applicant/developer shall
provide a site with appropriate hook ups in close proximity to the
project site to accommodate this trailer. The applicant/developer
shall cause the trailer to be moved from its current location at the
time necessary as determined by the Building Official at the
Applicant/Developer's expense.
47. Copies of Approved Plans. Applicant shall provide City with 2 B 30 days after
reduced (1/2 size) copies of the City of Dublin stamped approved permit and
14
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
plan. each revision
issuance
48. Solar Zone — CA Energy Code. Show the location of the Solar B Through
Zone on the roof and site plans. Detail the orientation of the Solar Completion
Zone. This condition of approval will be waived if the project meets
the exceptions provided in the CA Energy Code.
49. Accessible Parking. The required number of accessible parking B Through
stalls, the design and location of the accessible parking stalls shall Completion
be as required by the CA Building Code. The number and locations
in the SDR are for reference only and are not approved.
50. Accessory Structures. Building permits are required for all trash B Through
enclosures and associated amenities /structures and are required to Completion
meet the accessibility and building codes.
51. 60-Foot No Build Covenant. Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code B Prior to
Section 7.32.130, the owner shall file with the Building Official a Permitting
Covenant and Agreement Regarding Maintenance of Yards for an
Oversized Building binding such owner, his heirs, and assignees, to
set aside a 60-foot required yard as unobstructed space having no
improvements. After execution by the owner and Building Official,
such covenant shall be recorded in the Alameda County Recorder's
Office, and shall continue in effect so long as an oversized building
remains or unless otherwise released by authority of the Building
Official.
52. CA Green Building Code. B Prior to
a) Project shall install short and long term bicycle stalls meeting Permitting
the requirements of the CA Green Building Code. The
location, style and number shall be submitted to the Building
Official for review and approval.
b) Clean Air, Vanpool and Electric Vehicle parking stalls shall be
provided. The location and number shall meet or exceed the
requirements of the CA Green Building Code.
53. The project shall comply with all Building and Fire Code Fire At permit
requirements at the time of permit issuance. issuance
54. New Fire Sprinkler System & Monitoring Requirements Fire Occupancy
In accordance with The Dublin Fire Code, fire sprinklers shall be
installed in the building. The system shall be in accordance with the
NFPA 13, the CA Fire Code and CA Building Code. This may be a
deferred submittal.
a. Sprinkler Plans. (Deferred Submittal Item). Submit detailed
mechanical drawings of all sprinkler modifications, including cut
sheets, listing sheets and calculations to the Fire Department for
approval and permit prior to installation.
b. All sprinkler system components shall remain in compliance with
the applicable N.F.P.A. 13 Standard, the CA Fire Code and the
CA Building Code.
c. Underground Plans. (Deferred Submittal Item). Submit
detailed shop drawings for the fire water supply system, including
cut sheets, listing sheets and calculations to the Fire Department
for approval and permit prior to installation. All underground and
fire water supply system components shall be in compliance with
the applicable N.F.P.A. 13, 24, 20, 22 Standards, the CA Fire
Code and the CA Building Code. The system shall be
hydrostatically tested and inspected prior to being covered. Prior
15
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
to the system being connected to any fire protection system, a
system flush shall be witnessed by the Fire Department.
d. Central Station Monitoring. Automatic fire extinguishing
systems installed within buildings shall have all control valves
and flow devices electrically supervised and maintained by an
approved central alarm station. Zoning and annunciation of
central station alarm signals shall be submitted to the Fire
Department for approval. The central station monitoring service
shall be either certificated or placarded as defined in N.F.P.A.
Standard No. 72. Assure the specific account is UL Certificated
or Placarded and not just the monitoring station.
55. Fire Alarm (detection) System Required in Assembly / Fire Occupancy
Mercantile Occupancy.
A Fire Alarm-Detection System shall be installed throughout the
building so as to provide full property protection, including
combustible concealed spaces, as required by NFPA 72. The
system shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 72, CA Fire,
Building, Electrical, and Mechanical Codes.
If the system is intended to serve as an evacuation system,
compliance with the horn/strobe requirements for the entire building
must also be met. All automatic fire extinguishing systems shall be
interconnected to the fire alarm system so as to activate an alarm if
activated and to monitor control valves. Delayed egress locks shall
meet requirements of C.F.C.
56. FD Building Key Box for Building Access. A Fire Department Key Fire Occupancy
Box shall be installed at the main entrance to all commercial
buildings. Note these locations on the plans. The key box should be
installed approximately 5 1/2 feet above grade.
PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL CONDITIONS
57. The Developer shall comply with the Subdivision Map Act, the City of PW Ongoing
Dublin Subdivision, and Grading Ordinances, the City of Dublin
Public Works Standards and Policies, the most current requirements
of the State Code Title 24 and the American's with Disabilities Act
with regard to accessibility, and all building and fire codes and
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. All public
improvements constructed by the Developer and to be dedicated to
the City are hereby identified as "public works" under Labor Code
section 1771. Accordingly, the Developer, in constructing such
improvements, shall comply with the Prevailing Wage Law (Labor
Code. Sects. 1720 and following).
58. The Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City PW Ongoing
of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents,
officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval
of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning
Commission, City Council, Community Development Director,
Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or
agency of the City related to the project (Tract 8203) to the extent
such actions are brought within the time period required by
Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law;
provided, however, that the Developer's duty to so defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the city's promptly
notifying the Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and
16
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
the City's full cooperation in the defense of such actions or
proceedings.
59. General Conditions of Approval. Developer shall comply with the PW Prior to
following General Conditions of Approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Issuance of
Map 8203—The Green at Park Place. Building
Permits
60. Clarification of Conditions. In the event that there needs to be PW On-going
clarification to the Conditions of Approval, the Director of Community
Development and the City Engineer have the authority to clarify the
intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Developer without going
to a public hearing. The Director of Community Development and
the City Engineer also have the authority to make minor
modifications to these conditions without going to a public hearing in
order for the Developer to fulfill needed improvements or mitigations
resulting from impacts of this project.
61. If there are conflicts between the Vesting Tentative Map approval
and the SDR approval pertaining to mapping or public improvements
the Vesting Tentative Map shall take precedence.
62. Ownership and Maintenance of Improvements. Ownership and PW Final Map and
maintenance of street right-of-ways, common area parcels and open Ongoing
space areas and improvements shall be by the City of Dublin and
The Green at Park Place Homeowner's Association as shown on the
"Ownership and Maintenance Plan" Stage II PD Exhibits, Sheet
C6.01, prepared by Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar, dated June 27, 2014,
except the landscape parkway strip and sidewalk along the project
frontage at Martinelli Way shall be City Owned and HOA maintained,
and except as modified by these Conditions of Approval.
63. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). A PW Improvement
Homeowners' Association(s) and/or Property Owners' Association Plans
shall be formed that covers both the residential and commercial
parcels by recordation of a declaration of Covenants, Conditions,
and Restrictions to govern use and maintenance of the landscape,
decorative pavement and other features within the public right of way
contained in the Agreement for Long Term Encroachments; all open
space and common area landscaping; all stormwater treatment
measures; trail improvements; and the EVAE. Said declaration shall
set forth the Association name, bylaws, rules and regulations. The
CC&Rs shall contain a provision that parking for residential uses
may overflow onto the commercial parcel(s). The parking study
submitted and approved for the project assumed a certain amount of
commercial parking spaces would serve as guest parking for the
residential units. The CC&Rs shall also contain a provision that
prohibits the amendment of those provisions of the CC&Rs
requested by City without the City's approval. The CC&Rs shall
ensure that there is adequate provision for the maintenance, in good
repair and on a regular basis, the landscaping & irrigation, decorative
pavements, median islands, fences, walls, drainage, lighting, signs
and other related improvements. The Developer shall submit a copy
of the CC&R document to the City for review and approval relative to
these conditions of approval.
64. Phased Improvements. Right-of-way dedication and installation of PW First Final Map
public improvements may be done in phases as indicated on the
Tentative Map and Site Development Review, subject to the review
and approval of the City Engineer. With each phased Final Map, the
City Engineer shall identify all improvements necessary to serve and
17
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
access the phased lots created. All rights-of-way and
improvements, including utilities and traffic signal installation and
modifications, identified by the City Engineer for construction within
the boundaries of each phase of the development shall be required
with the Final Map for that phase. In addition, the City Engineer may
require the Developer to perform off-site grading in order to conform
site grading to the adjacent grade outside of the phase proposed for
development.
65. Private street and common area subdivision improvements. PW First Phase of
Common area improvements, private streets, private alleys and all Improvement
other subdivision improvements owned or maintained by the Plans
homeowners' and/or property owners' association(s) are subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer prior to Final Map approval
and shall be included in the Tract Improvement Agreement for each
respective tract. Such improvements include, but are not limited to:
curb & gutter, pavement areas, sidewalks, access ramps &
driveways; enhanced street paving; parking spaces; street lights
(wired underground) and appurtenances; drainage facilities; utilities;
landscape and irrigation facilities; open space landscaping;
stormwater treatment facilities; striping and signage; and fire
hydrants.
66. Private Street Easements. Public Utility Easements (PUE), Sanitary PW First Phase of
Sewer Easements (SSE) and Water Line Easements (WLE) shall be Improvement
established over the entire private street right-of-ways within all Plans
subdivisions. The PUE, SSE and WLE dedication statements on
each Final Map are to recite that the easements are available for,
but not limited to, the installation, access and maintenance of
sanitary and storm sewers, water, electrical and communication
facilities. Project entry monument signs and walls shall not be
located within these easements.
67. Private Street Easements. The Developer shall dedicate PW Final
Emergency Vehicle Access Easements (EVAE) over the clear Acceptance of
pavement width of all private streets and alleys. Easement Project
geometry shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and
Fire Marshall.
68. Intersections: The design of the intersections shall be generally as PW Improvement
shown on the Tentative Map and the Site Development Review. The Plans
Developer shall submit details of typical intersection layout showing
the design for the ramps, sidewalks, lane lines, turn lanes, entry
walls, stop signs, landscape planters, street trees, crosswalk
locations and decorative pavement to be approved by the City
Engineer prior to the submittal of the Improvement Plans. Final
design details shall be subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer.
69. Monuments. Final Maps shall include private street monuments to PW Improvement
be set in all private streets. Private street monuments shall be set at Plans
all intersections and as determined by the City Engineer.
70. Stormwater Source Control. "No Dumping Drains to Bay" storm PW Prior to
drain medallions per City Standard Detail CD-704 shall be placed on Issuance of
all public and private storm drain inlets. Building
Permits
71. Curb Ramps: Curb ramp layouts are not approved at this time. The PW Prior to
number, location and layout of all curb ramps shall be reviewed and Grading
approved by the City Engineer with the Improvement Plans
18
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
associated with each Final Map. All pedestrian ramps shall be
designed and constructed to provide direct access to marked or
unmarked crosswalks. Each pedestrian ramp shall be oriented such
that it is aligned and parallel to the marked or unmarked crosswalk it
is intended to serve. Pedestrian ramps serving more than one
marked or unmarked crosswalk shall not be provided, unless
specifically approved by the City Engineer.
72. Trash Enclosures. The Developer shall construct trash enclosures PW Improvement
at the site. Trash enclosures shall at a minimum meet all Plans
requirements set forth in the Dublin Municipal Code (DMC) Section
7.98, and be approved by the trash collection company for the site
(currently AVI). The Developer shall directly coordinate with AVI for
their review and approval. The Developer shall submit written
verification to the Public Works Department that AVI has reviewed
and approved the trash enclosure size, location and design.
73. Utilities. All new utility service connections, including electrical and PW/PL Prior to
communications, shall be installed underground. Electrical Issuance of
transformers shall be installed in underground vaults within an Building
appropriate utility easement or public service easement. Permits
74. Landscape Plans. Developer shall submit design development PW Final Map
Landscape Plans with the first plan check for the street improvement Approval
plans and final map for each respective tract. The Landscape Plans
shall show details, sections and supplemental information as
necessary for design coordination of the various civil design features
and elements including utility location to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. Complete Landscape Plans shall be concurrently
approved with the Tract Improvement Agreement and Final Map.
75. Street Light and Joint Trench Plans. Streetlight Plans and Joint PW In Conjunction
Trench Plans shall be submitted with the first plan check for the with the Final
street improvement plans and final map for each respective tract. Map or by
The final streetlight plan and joint trench plan shall be completed Separate
prior to Final Map approval for each respective subdivision. Instrument
Prior to
Occupancy
76. Geotechnical Investigation. The Developer shall submit a design PW Improvement
level geotechnical investigation report defining and delineating any Plans
seismic hazard. The report shall be prepared in accordance with
guidelines published by the State of California. The report is subject
to review and approval by a City selected peer review consultant
prior to the acceptance of each Final map. The applicant shall pay
all costs related to the required peer review. The recommendations
of those geotechnical reports shall be incorporated into the project
tans subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
77. Soils Report. The Developer shall submit a detailed soils report PW Improvement
prepared by a qualified engineer, registered with the State of Plans
California. The required report shall include recommendations
regarding pavement sections for all project streets including Arnold
Drive, Martinelli Way, and Hacienda Drive and all internal streets.
Grading operations shall be in accordance with recommendations
contained in the required soils report and grading shall be
supervised by an engineer registered in the State of California to do
such work.
78. Geotechnical Engineer Review and Approval. The Project PW[PL] On-going
Geotechnical Engineer shall be retained to review all final grading
19
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
plans and specifications. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall
approve all grading plans prior to City approval and issuance of
grading permits.
79. Grading. The disposal site and haul truck route for any off-haul dirt PW Prior to
materials shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Working
Engineer prior to the approval the improvement plans or issuance of Within the
a Grading Permit. If the Developer does not own the parcel on Public Right of
which the proposed disposal site is located, the Developer shall Way
provide the City with a Letter of Consent, signed by the current
owner, approving the placement of off-haul material on their parcel.
A grading plan may be required for the placement of the off-haul
material.
80. Underground Obstructions. Prior to demolition, excavation and PW Prior to Start
grading on any portion of the project site, all underground of Public
obstructions (i.e., debris, septic tanks, fuel tanks, barrels, chemical Improvements
waste) shall be identified and removed pursuant to Federal, State
and local regulations and subject to the review and approval by the
City. Excavations shall be properly backfilled using structural fill,
subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.
81. Record Drawings. At the completion of construction, the Developer PW Prior to
shall provide the Public Works Department bond and electronic Release of
(PDF) copies of the civil, joint trench and landscape plans indicating Bonds
all changes that were made during construction.
82. Storm Drain Video. Private and public storm drain pipes shall be PW Improvement
videoed per the City of Dublin requirements. Notes specifying Plans and
procedures shall be included on the improvement plans. prior to
release of
bonds
83. Water Quality Treatment. The provided Stormwater Management PW Improvement
Plan included with the Tentative Map is approved in concept only. Plans
The final Stormwater Management Plan is subject to City Engineer
approval prior to approval of the Tract Improvement Plans. Approval
is subject to the developer providing the necessary plans, details,
and calculations that demonstrate the plan complies with the
standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
Municipal Regional Permit (MRP).
84. Non-City Agencies. The Applicant/Developer will be responsible for PW Improvement
submittals and reviews to obtain the approvals of all participating Plans
non-City agencies. The Alameda County Fire Department and the
Dublin San Ramon Services District shall approve and sign the
Improvement Plans.
85. Hydrology and Hydraulic Calculations. Hydrology and Hydraulic PW Improvement
Calculations shall be provided for the design of the site storm drain Plans
system.
86. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The Various Prior to
Applicant/Developer shall comply with applicable Alameda County Issuance of
Fire, Dublin Public Works Department, Dublin Building Department, Building
Dublin Police Services, Alameda County Flood Control District Zone Permits
7, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, Alameda County
Public and Environmental Health, Dublin San Ramon Services
District and the California Department of Health Services
requirements and standard conditions. Prior to issuance of building
permits or the installation of any improvements related to this
20
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
project, the Developer shall supply written statements from each
such agency or department to the Planning Department, indicating
that all applicable conditions required have been or will be met.
87. Utility Siting Plan. The Applicant/Developer shall provide a final PW, PL Prior to
Utility Siting Plan showing that transformers and service boxes are Issuance of
placed outside of public view where possible and/or screened to the Grading
satisfaction of the Community Development Director and City Permits
Engineer. Applicant/Developer shall place all utility infrastructures
underground including electric, telecommunications, cable TV, and
gas in accordance with standards enforced by the appropriate utility
agency. Utility plans showing the location of all proposed utilities
shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to
installation.
88. Emergency Vehicle Access Easement Dedications. PW, F In Conjunction
Applicant/Developer shall dedicate all needed emergency vehicle with the Final
access easements from each adjacent public street to all fire access Map or by
roads surrounding the site and buildings as defined by Alameda Separate
County Fire Department and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Instrument
Prior to
Occupancy
AGREEMENTS AND BONDS
89. Tract Improvement Agreement. The Developer shall enter into a PW Final Map
Tract Improvement Agreement with the City of Dublin for all public
improvements including any required offsite storm drainage or
roadway improvements that are needed to serve the Tract that have
not been bonded with another Tract Improvement Agreement.
90. Long Term Encroachment Agreement. The Developer shall enter PW Final Map
into an "Agreement for Long Term Encroachments" with the City of
Dublin to allow the HOA and/or POA to maintain the landscape and
decorative features within the public right-of-way including frontage
and median landscaping, decorative pavement and special features
(i.e. walls, portals, benches, etc.) as generally shown on the Site
Development Review exhibits. The Agreement shall identify the
ownership of the special features and maintenance responsibilities.
The Homeowner's and/or Property Owners' Association will be
responsible for maintaining the surface of all decorative pavements
including restoration required as a result of utility repairs.
91. Stormwater Treatment Measures Maintenance Agreement. The PW Final Map
Developer shall enter into a "Stormwater Treatment Measures
Maintenance Agreement" (O&M Agreement) with the City of Dublin
that guarantees the perpetual maintenance obligation for all storm
water treatment measures installed as part of the project. Said
agreement is required pursuant to Provision C.3.h of RWQCB Order
R2-2009-0074 for the issuance of the Alameda Countywide NPDES
municipal storm water permit. Said permit requires the City to
provide verification and assurance that all treatment devices will be
properly operated and maintained. This condition shall not apply if
the water quality treatment measures are maintained by a GHAD or
other pu blic entity.
92. Security. The Developer shall provide Faithful Performance security PW Final Map
(100%), and Labor & Materials security (100%), to guarantee the
tract improvements, approved by the City Engineer, prior to
execution of the Tract Improvement Agreement and approval of the
Final Ma .
21
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
93. Maintenance Security. Upon acceptance of the improvements, the PW Acceptance of
Faithful Performance security may be replaced with a maintenance Improvements
bond that is 25% of the value of the Faithful Performance security.
The maintenance bond is returned to the Developer within one year
of City acceptance of the improvements.
FEES
94. The Developer shall pay all applicable fees in effect at the time of PW Zone 7 and
building permit issuance including, but not limited to, Planning fees, Parkland In-
Building fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District fees, Public Lieu Fees due
Facilities fees, Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, prior to Final
Public Works Traffic Impact fees, Alameda County Fire Services Map;
fees, Noise Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu fees, Other Fees
Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) required with
Drainage and Water Connection fees and any other fees except and issuance of
as otherwise noted in the Development Agreement. building
permits
95. Parkland In-Lieu Fees. The Developer shall dedicate parkland or PW Prior to Filing
pay in-lieu fees in the amounts and at the times set forth in City of Final Map
Dublin Resolution No. 60-99, or in any resolution revising these
amounts and as implemented by the Administrative Guidelines
adopted by Resolution 195-99.
PERMITS
96. Encroachment Permit. Developer shall obtain an Encroachment PW Start of Work
Permit from the Public Works Department for all construction activity
within the public right-of-way of any street where the City has
accepted the improvements. The encroachment permit may require
surety for slurry seal and restriping. At the discretion of the City
Engineer an encroachment for work specifically included in an
Improvement Agreement may not be required.
97. Grading/Sitework Permit. Developer shall obtain a PW Start of Work
Grading/Sitework Permit from the Public Works Department for all
grading and private site improvements that serves more than one lot
or residential condominium unit.
98. Other Agency Permits. Developer shall obtain all permits required PW Issuance of
by other agencies including, but not limited to Alameda County Flood Permit/Start of
Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7, California Work
Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional
Water Quality Control Board, Caltrans and provide copies of the
permits to the Public Works Department.
SUBMITTALS
99. All submittals of plans and Final Maps shall comply with the PW Improvement
requirements of the "City of Dublin Public Works Department Plan or Final
Improvement Plan Submittal Requirements", and the "City of Dublin Map
Improvement Plan Review Check List".
100. The Developer will be responsible for submittals and reviews to PW Improvement
obtain the approvals of all participating non-City agencies. The Plans or Final
Alameda County Fire Department and the Dublin San Ramon Map
Services District shall approve and sign the Improvement Plans.
101. Developer shall submit a Geotechnical Report, which includes street PW Grading/Impro
pavement sections and grading recommendations. vement Plans
or Final Map
102. Developer shall provide the Public Works Department a PDF file and PW Acceptance of
digital vectorized file of the "master" CAD files for the project when
22
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
the Final Map has been approved. Digital raster copies are not Improvements
acceptable. The digital vectorized files shall be in AutoCAD 14 or and Release
higher drawing format. Drawing units shall be decimal with the of Bonds
precision of the Final Map. All objects and entities in layers shall be
colored by layer and named in English. All submitted drawings shall
use the Global Coordinate System of USA, California, NAD 83
California State Plane, Zone III, and U.S. foot.
FINAL MAP
103. All Final Maps shall be substantially in accordance with the Tentative PW Approval of
Maps approved with this application, unless otherwise modified by Final Map
these conditions. Multiple final maps may be filed in phases,
provided that each phase is consistent with the tentative map, that
phasing progresses in an orderly and logical manner and adequate
infrastructure is installed with each phase to serve that phase as a
stand-alone project that is not dependent upon future phasing for
infrastructure.
104. All rights-of-way and easement dedications required by the Vesting PW Approval of
Tentative Map shall be shown on the Final Map. Final Ma
105. Any phasing of the final mapping or improvements of a Vesting PW Approval of
Tentative Map is subject to the approval and conditions of the City Final Map
Engineer.
106. Street names shall be assigned to each public/private street PW Approval of
pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 7.08. The approved street Final Map
names shall be indicated on the Final Map.
107. All Final Maps shall include street monuments to be set in all public PW Monuments to
streets. be shown on
Final Map and
installed prior
to acceptance
of
Improvements
EASEMENTS
108. The Developer shall obtain abandonment from all applicable public PW Approval of
agencies of existing easements and right of ways that will no longer Improvement
be used. Plans and
Final Map
109. The Developer shall acquire easements, and/or obtain rights-of-entry PW Approval of
from the adjacent property owners for any improvements on their Improvement
property. The easements and/or rights-of-entry shall be in writing Plans and
and copies furnished to the City Engineer. Final Map
GRADING
110. The Grading Plan shall be in conformance with the PW Approval of
recommendations of the Geotechnical Report, the approved Grading Plans
Tentative Map and/or Site Development Review, and the City design or Issuance of
standards & ordinances. In case of conflict between the soil Grading
engineer's recommendations and City ordinances, the City Engineer Permit.
shall determine which shall apply.
111. A detailed Erosion Control Plan shall be included with the Grading PW Approval of
Plan approval. The plan shall include detailed design, location, and Grading Plans
maintenance criteria of all erosion and sedimentation control or Issuance of
measures. Grading
Permit.
23
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
112. Tiebacks or structural fabric for retaining walls shall not cross PW Approval of
property lines, or shall be located a minimum of 2' below the finished Grading Plans
grade of the upper lot. or Issuance of
Grading
Permit.
113. Bank slopes along public streets shall be no steeper than 3:1. The PW Approval of
toe of any slope along public streets shall be one foot back of Grading Plans
walkway. The top of any slope along public streets shall be three or Issuance of
feet back of walkway. Minor exception may be made in the above Grading
slope design criteria to meet unforeseen design constraints submit to Permits, and
the approval of the City Engineer. Ongoing
IMPROVEMENTS
114. The public improvements shall be constructed generally as shown PW Approval of
on the Vesting Tentative Map and/or Site Development Review. Grading/Impro
However, the approval of the Tentative Map and/or Site vement Plans
Development Review is not an approval of the specific design of the or issuance of
drainage, sanitary sewer, water, and street improvements. grading
permits.
115. All public improvements shall conform to the City of Dublin Standard PW Approval of
Plans and design requirements and as approved by the City Grading/Impro
Engineer. vement Plans
or Start of
Construction.
116. Martinelli Way. The Developer shall dedicate two feet (2') of right- PW Final Map
of-way and install street improvements along the project's Martinelli
Way frontage. Required street improvements include, but are not
limited to: removal of existing asphalt concrete sidewalk;
construction of new ten foot (10') wide Class I pedestrian/bike trail
and four foot (4') wide (inclusive of curb) landscape strip; driveways;
curb ramps; street trees; irrigation and relocation of utilities.
Developer shall also install root barriers adjacent to both sidewalk
and back of curb within landscape strip.
117. Arnold Road — North of Project Driveway. The Developer shall PW Final Map
construct frontage improvements along Arnold Road, north of the
project driveway, such that the curb-to-median curb width is twenty
six feet (26') and include a twelve foot (12') travel lane, six foot (6)
bike lane and eight foot (8') parking lane. The Developer shall also
install a five foot (5) (inclusive of curb width) monolithic sidewalk.
Required roadway improvements on Arnold Road north of the
Project driveway shall include, but are not limited to: curb, gutter,
sidewalk, curb ramps, drainage structures and relocation of utilities.
118. Arnold Road — North of Project Driveway. Approximately 12-18 PW Final Map
feet of excess right-of-way behind the new back-of-walk shall be
vacated with the first Final Map for the project in accordance with
Subdivision Map Act Sections 66434(g) and 66436. The new right-
of-way line shall coincide with the new back-of-walk.
119. Arnold Road — South of Project Driveway. The Developer shall PW Final Map
dedicate right-of-way and construct frontage improvements along
Arnold Road, south of the project driveway, such that the curb-to-
median curb width is twenty six feet (26') and include a twelve foot
(12') travel lane, six foot (6) bike lane and eight foot (8') parking
lane. The Developer shall also install a five foot (5) (inclusive of
24
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
curb width monolithic sidewalk.
120. Arnold Road cul-de-sac. The Developer shall dedicate and secure PW First Final Map
the dedication of right-of-way and install complete roadway and requiring
utility improvements for the construction of a new cul-de-sac at the frontage
current southern terminus of Arnold Road near the southwest corner improvement
of the project. The Developer shall facilitate and secure the on Arnold
dedication of right-of-way required on the adjacent Alameda County Road
Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA) parcel necessary for the
construction of the new cul-de-sac. Dedication of the required right-
of-way by ACSPA shall be recorded prior to approval of the First
Final Map that requires frontage improvements on Arnold Road.
121. Arnold Road cul-de-sac. Required roadway and utility PW First Final Map
improvements for the Arnold Road cul-de-sac shall include, but are requiring
not limited to: removal/reconstruction of existing median nose, frontage
removal of existing traffic islands, installation of pavement, curb, improvement
gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, driveways, drainage structures, utilities, on Arnold
street lights, and fire hydrants. The minimum curb-to-curb diameter Road
for the cul-de-sac shall be ninety six feet (96'). Final design of cul-
de-sac and connection to Alta Mirano Avenue shall be subject to
review and approval of the Fire Marshall and the City Engineer.
122. Arnold Road cul-de-sac. The Developer shall use diligent PW First Final Map
commercially reasonable efforts to obtain, at its cost, any right-of- requiring
way, access rights and other consents and approvals from affected frontage
property owners necessary to complete improvements for the Arnold improvement
Road cul-de-sac; provided, however, that if the Developer is unable, on Arnold
through the use of diligent commercially reasonable efforts, to obtain Road
the necessary right-of-way, access rights and other consents and
approvals for any portion of the Arnold Road cul-de-sac (an
"Unacquired Portion") by the date that is six months before the date
construction is scheduled to Commence, the Developer shall so
notify the City in writing, and either:
a. City shall procure the necessary right-of-way, access rights and
other consents and approvals for the applicable Unacquired
Portion and shall seek to gain possession of the Unacquired
Portion within a timeframe that will not delay Developer's
schedule. Developer's obligation to Commence Construction
with respect to the applicable Unacquired Portion shall be tolled
until City has procured the necessary right-of-way, access rights
and other consents and approvals; or
b. If City has not procured the necessary right-of-way, access rights
and other consents and approvals within two years after the date
Construction Commenced on the Arnold Road cul-de-sac,
Developer shall be released from its obligations under these
Conditions of Approval and any of the other approvals with
respect to the construction of the cul-de-sac. The Developer
shall then be responsible for construction of the alternate
`hammerhead' turnaround as shown on the Vesting Tentative
Map.
123. Public streets shall be at a minimum 1% slope with minimum gutter PW Approval of
flow of 0.7% around bumpouts. Private streets and alleys shall be at Grading/Impro
minimum 0.5% slope. vement Plans
or Start of
25
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
Construction.
Ongoing
124. Curb Returns on arterial and collector streets shall be 40-foot radius, PW Approval of
all internal public streets curb returns shall be minimum 30-foot Grading/Impro
radius (36-foot with bump outs) and private streets/alleys shall be a vement Plans
minimum 20-foot radius, or as approved by the City Engineer. Curb or Start of
ramp locations and design shall conform to the most current Title 24 Construction.
and Americans with Disabilities Act requirements and as approved Ongoing
by the City Traffic Engineer.
125. All landscaping and any architectural structure shall be no more than PW Improvement
30 inches tall inside the Visibility zone established by a Safe Plans
Stopping Sight Distance at the project entrances on Martinelli Way
and Arnold Road. The Safe Stopping Sight Distance shall be based
on the 35 MPH on Martinelli Way and 30 MPH on Arnold Road. The
sight distances shall be prepared by a Traffic Engineer and shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
126. Decorative pavers, stamped concrete or other similar non-standard PW Approval of
pavement sections shall not be installed on any public right of way, Grading/Impro
unless the design and location is reviewed and approved by the City vement Plans
Engineer. In general, decorative pavement (pavers, or similar non- or Start of
standard pavement sections) shall not be installed over traffic Construction.
detector loops, inside crosswalks or within thirty feet (30') of any Ongoing
crosswalk or STOP bar. Decorative pavements shall not interfere
with the placement of traffic control devices, including pavement
markings. Maintenance costs of the decorative paving shall be the
responsibility of the Homeowners Association.
127. Median Landscaping. Median landscaping at the main entrance to PW Improvement
the site from Martinelli Way shall not exceed maximum height for Plans and
sight distance requirements. ongoing
128. Utility Design. All utility design including but not limited to storm PW Geotechnical
drain and storm water treatment measures shall be located as not to Report and
compromise the integrity of the building foundations for Improvement
excavation/maintenance of utility is needed. Geotechnical Engineer Plans
Report shall address the clearance required.
129. Bike Lanes on Arnold Drive. Bike Lanes shall be provided along PW Improvement
the frontage of the project on Arnold Road. Bike lane design shall be Plans
reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
130. TDM Plan. Developer shall prepare a Transportation Demand PW Prior to
Management Plan (TDM) Plan as per the SEIR mitigations. The Approval of
TDM plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Final Map
Engineer prior to implementation and shall include additional TDM
measures for residential development beyond those that are noted in
the SEIR.
131. Class 1 Trail. Developer shall construct a Class 1 Trail at least 10 PW Improvement
feet wide with adequate clearances from the intersection of Martinelli Plans
Way and Hacienda Drive, south along the Hacienda Drive frontage
and west along the southern property frontage, to the southern
terminus of Arnold Drive to connect to the trail along Altamirano
Way, and as approved by the City Engineer.
132. Traffic Signal and Median Modifications. Developer shall modify PW Improvement
traffic signal at the intersection of Martinelli Way and project Plans
driveway, and at Martinelli Way and Hacienda Drive. The medians
26
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
along Martinelli Way and Hacienda Drive shall be modified to
accommodate safe turning movements and overall traffic circulation.
The changes to the intersection at Martineli Way and Hacienda Drive
will trigger significant changes to the signal operations along
Hacienda Drive. Developer shall pay for any needed operational
changes including traffic consultant costs for updating signal
coordination plans, and field implementation of operational changes
at the intersection. Developer shall submit any traffic signal
operational changes to the City Traffic Engineer for review and
approval prior to field implementation. Developer shall install a traffic
monitoring camera and associated equipment at the intersection of
Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way.
133. Trash Capture. The project Stormwater Management Plan shall PW Improvement
incorporate full trash capture measures such as screens, filters or Plans
CDS/Vortex units to address the requirements of Provision C.10 of
the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Municipal
Regional Permit (MRP) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
134. Stormwater Treatment. Developer shall incorporate source control PW Improvement
measures, stormwater treatment measures, and trash capture Plans
measures into the site design as required pursuant to Provision C.3
and C.10 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit,
Order No. R2-2009-0074, CAS612008.
135. The Developer shall install all traffic signs and pavement marking as PW Occupancy of
required by the City Engineer. Units or
Acceptance of
Improvements
136. Street light standards and luminaries shall be designed and installed PW Occupancy of
per approval of the City Engineer. The maximum voltage drop for Units or
streetlights is 5%. Acceptance of
Improvements
137. The Developer shall construct bus stops and shelters at the PW Occupancy of
locations designated and approved by the LAVTA and the City Units or
Engineer. The Developer shall pay the cost of procuring and Acceptance of
installing these improvements. Bus stops shall have a bus pull-out Improvements
with an entry taper of 40 feet, exit taper of 80 feet and the bus
landing area 80 feet long and 12 feet deep. All bus stops shall have
the electricity connection for any future upgrades to electronic signs
as per LAVTA guidelines and/or standards.
138. Developer shall construct all potable and recycled water and sanitary PW Occupancy of
sewer facilities required to serve the project in accordance with Units or
DSRSD master plans, standards, specifications and requirements. Acceptance of
Improvements
139. Fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the Alameda County Fire PW Occupancy of
Department. A raised reflector blue traffic marker shall be installed in Units or
the street opposite each hydrant. Acceptance of
Improvements
140. The Developer shall furnish and install street name signs for the PW Occupancy of
project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Units or
Acceptance of
Improvements
141. Developer shall construct gas, electric, cable TV and communication PW Occupancy of
improvements within the fronting streets and as necessary to serve Units or
27
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
the project and the future adjacent parcels as approved by the City Acceptance of
Engineer and the various Public Utility agencies. Improvements
142. All electrical, gas, telephone, and Cable TV utilities, shall be PW Occupancy of
underground in accordance with the City policies and ordinances. Units or
All utilities shall be located and provided within public utility Acceptance of
easements and sized to meet utility company standards. Improvements
143. All utility vaults, boxes and structures, unless specifically approved PW Occupancy of
otherwise by the City Engineer, shall be underground and placed in Units or
landscape areas and screened from public view. Prior to Joint Acceptance of
Trench Plan approval, landscape drawings shall be submitted to the Improvements
City showing the location of all utility vaults, boxes and structures
and adjacent landscape features and plantings. The Joint Trench
Plans shall be signed by the City Engineer prior to construction of
the joint trench improvements.
CONSTRUCTION
144. Construction Hours. Standard construction and grading hours PW On-going as
shall be limited to weekdays (Monday through Friday) and non-City needed
holidays between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. The
Developer may request reasonable modifications to such determined
days and hours, taking into account the seasons, impacts on
neighboring properties, and other appropriate factors, by submitting
a request form to the City Engineer. For work on Saturdays, said
request shall be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. the prior
Wednesday. Overtime inspection rates will apply for all after-hours,
Saturday, and/or holiday work.
145. Construction Trash/Debris. Measures shall be taken to contain all PW, B, PL Prior to
construction related trash, debris, and materials on-site until disposal Construction
off-site can be arranged. The Applicant/Developer shall keep the
adjoining public streets and properties free and clean of project dirt,
mud, and materials during the construction period. The Developer
shall be responsible for corrective measures at no expense to the
City of Dublin.
146. Construction Fencing. The use of any temporary construction PL, PW, B Prior to
fencing shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Issuance of
Engineer and the Building Official. Building
Permits
147. Erosion Control during Construction. Applicant/Developer shall PW Ongoing as
include an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan with the Grading and needed
Improvement plans for review and approval by the City Engineer.
Said plan shall be designed, implemented, and continually
maintained pursuant to the City's NPDES permit between October
1s` and April 15`" or beyond these dates if dictated by rainy weather,
or as otherwise directed by the City Engineer. The Developer will be
responsible for maintaining erosion and sediment control measures
for one year following the City's acceptance of the subdivision
improvements.
148. If archaeological materials are encountered during construction, PW Ongoing as
construction within 100 feet of these materials shall be halted until a needed
professional Archaeologist who is certified by the Society of
California Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of Professional
Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the
significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures.
149.1 Developer shall prepare a construction noise management plan that PW Start of
28
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
identifies measures to be taken to minimize construction noise on Construction,
surrounding developed properties. The plan shall include hours of Implementatio
construction operation, use of mufflers on construction equipment, n, and
speed limit for construction traffic, haul routes and identify a noise Ongoing as
monitor. Specific noise management measures shall be provided needed
prior to project construction.
150. Developer shall prepare a plan for construction traffic interface with PW Start of
public traffic on any existing public street. Construction traffic and Construction,
parking may be subject to specific requirements by the City Implementatio
Engineer. n, and
Ongoing as
needed
151. The Developer shall be responsible for controlling any rodent, PW Ongoing
mosquito, or other pest problem due to construction activities.
152. The Developer shall be responsible for watering or other dust- PW Ongoing
palliative measures to control dust as conditions warrant or as
directed by the City Engineer.
153. The Developer shall provide the Public Works Department with a PW Issuance of
letter from a registered civil engineer or surveyor stating that the Building
building pads have been graded to within 0.1 feet of the grades Permits or
shown on the approved Grading Plans, and that the top & toe of Acceptance of
banks and retaining walls are at the locations shown on the Improvements
approved Grading Plans.
STORM WATER QUALITY NPDES
154. Prior to any clearing or grading, the Developer shall provide the City PW Start of any
evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been sent to the California construction
State Water Resources Control Board per the requirements of the activities
NPDES. A copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) shall be provided to the Public Works Department and be
kept at the construction site.
155. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall identify PW SWPPP to be
the Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the project prepared prior
construction activities. The SWPPP shall include the erosion control to approval of
measures in accordance with the regulations outlined in the most improvement
current version of the ABAG Erosion and Sediment Control plans,
Handbook or State Construction Best Management Practices implementatio
Handbook. The Developer is responsible for ensuring that all n prior to start
contractors implement all storm water pollution prevention measures of construction
in the SWPPP. and ongoing
as needed
156. Prior to issuance of any building permit, complete improvement DSRSD Issuance of
plans shall be submitted to DSRSD that conform to the requirements Building
of the Dublin San Ramon Services District Code, the DSRSD Permits
"Standard Procedures, Specifications and Drawings for Design and
Installation of Water and Wastewater Facilities", all applicable
DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies.
157. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient capacity to DSRSD Issuance of
accommodate future flow demands in addition to each development Improvement
project's demand. Layout and sizing of mains shall be in Plans
conformance with DSRSD utility master planning.
158. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD's DSRSD Issuance of
existing sanitary sewer system. Pumping of sewage is discouraged Improvement
29
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
and may only be allowed under extreme circumstances following a Plans
case by case review with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will
require specific review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary
design reports, design criteria, and final plans and specifications.
The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth
20 year maintenance costs as well as other conditions within a
separate agreement with the applicant for any project that requires a
pumping station.
159. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for Tracts or DSRSD Issuance of
Commercial Developments shall be designed to be looped or Improvement
interconnected to avoid dead end sections in accordance with Plans
requirements of the DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound
engineering practice.
160. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer lines to be located in DSRSD Issuance of
public streets rather than in off-street locations to the fullest extent Improvement
possible. If unavoidable, then public sewer or water easements Plans
must be established over the alignment of each public sewer or
water line in an off-street or private street location to provide access
for future maintenance and/or replacement.
161. Prior to approval by the City of a grading permit or a site DSRSD Issuance of
development permit, the locations and widths of all proposed Improvement
easement dedications for water and sewer lines shall be submitted Plans
to and approved by DSRSD.
162. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be by separate DSRSD Issuance of
instrument irrevocably offered to DSRSD or by offer of dedication on Improvement
the Final Map. Plans
163. Prior to approval by the City for Recordation, the Final Map shall be DSRSD Issuance of
submitted to and approved by DSRSD for easement locations, Improvement
widths, and restrictions. Plans
164. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or Construction DSRSD Issuance of
Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, whichever comes Building
first, all utility connection fees including DSRSD and Zone 7, plan Permits
checking fees, inspection fees, connection fees, and fees associated
with a wastewater discharge permit shall be paid to DSRSD in
accordance with the rates and schedules established in the DSRSD
Code.
165. No sewer line or waterline construction shall be permitted unless the DSRSD Issuance of
proper utility construction permit has been issued by DSRSD. A Improvement
construction permit will only be issued after all of the items in the Plans
condition immediately above have been satisfied.
166. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or Construction DSRSD Issuance of
Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, whichever comes Building
first, all improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall be signed by Permits
the District Engineer. Each drawing of improvement plans shall
contain a signature block for the District Engineer indicating approval
of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown. Prior to approval by
the District Engineer, the applicant shall pay all required DSRSD
fees, and provide an engineer's estimate of construction costs for
the sewer and water systems, a performance bond, a one-year
maintenance bond, and a comprehensive general liability insurance
policy in the amounts and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The
applicant shall allow at least 15 working days for final improvement
drawing review by DSRSD before signature by the District Engineer.
30
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
167. The applicant shall hold DSRSD, its Board of Directors, DSRSD Issuance of
commissions, employees, and agents of DSRSD harmless and Building
indemnify and defend the same from any litigation, claims, or fines Permits
resulting from the construction and completion of the project.
168. Improvement plans shall include recycled water improvements as DSRSD Issuance of
required by DSRSD. Services for landscape irrigation shall connect Improvement
to recycled water mains. Applicant must obtain a copy of the DSRSD Plans
Recycled Water Use Guidelines and conform to the requirements
therein.
169. Above ground backflow prevention devices/double detector check DSRSD Issuance of
valves shall be installed on fire protection systems connected to the Improvement
DSRSD water main. The applicant shall collaborate with the Fire Plans
Department and with DSRSD to size and configure its fire system.
The applicant shall minimize the number of backflow prevention
devices/double detector check valves installed on its fire protection
system. The applicant shall minimize the visual impact of the
backflow prevention devices/double detector check valves through
strategic placement and landscaping.
170. A utility plan showing routing of improvements and demolition of DSRSD Issuance of
existing utilities (if any). Zone 7 Turnout and DSRSD Fluoride Improvement
St ora e Facilit shall be shown on final plans. Plans
171. DSRSD has major water infrastructure in the area in the form of DSRSD Ongoing
pipelines going from DSRSD Turnout 4 to customers. Applicant
shall ensure that the DSRSD infrastructure is not damaged or
compromised during the construction of this project.
172. DSRSD maintains radio communications links between Turnout 4 DSRSD Occupancy of
and Pump Station 10A and Reservoir 10A for transmission of first tenant
SCADA information. Applicant plans will be reviewed to ensure the space
communications links will remain unbroken Applicant, DSRSD and
City of Dublin will coordinate to be sure this DSRSD communications
link will remain operative and reliable after construction.
173. Development plans will not be approved until landscape plans are DSRSD Issuance of
submitted and approved. Sitework
Permit
174. Grading for construction shall be done with recycled water. DSRSD Ongoing
175. Temporary potable irrigation meters in areas with recycled water DSRSD Ongoing
service shall only be allowed for cross-connection and coverage
testing for a maximum of 14 calendar days.
176. Where the narrow width of a proposed alley or cul-de-sac would DSRSD Issuance of
make the standard spacing between water mains and sewer mains Sitework
unworkable, the developer must request an exemption from Permit
DSRSD's standard spacing requirements between mains. Such an
exemption may be granted, but only if:
1. The spacing between the sewer and water main is the maximum
width possible using the proposed width of the alley.
2. In no case is the spacing between the sewer and water main less
than five (5) feet measured edge to edge.
3. The vertical separation between the water line and the sewer line
is at least one (1) foot with the sewer line deeper than the water line.
4. The material for the water line is Class 200 pressure rated PVC
water pipe (DR 14 per AWWA C900-97 & C905-97) and the material
for the sewer main is PVC pipe using bell and spigot joints using
rubber g askets meeting the requirements of ASTM D3034, SDR26,
31
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
cell classification 12454-B or 12454-C.
Developer should be aware that the exemption is not guaranteed to
be granted, but may be granted if all special provisions for the
narrow alleyway are followed.
177. The project is located within the District Recycled Water Use Zone DSRSD Issuance of
(Ord. 301), which calls for installation of recycled water irrigation Sitework
systems to allow for the future use of recycled water for approved Permit
landscape irrigation demands. Recycled water will be available as
described in the DSRSD Water Master Plan Update, December
2005. Unless specifically exempted by the District Engineer,
compliance with Ordinance 301, as may be amended or
superseded, is required. Applicant must submit landscape irrigation
plans to DSRSD. All irrigation facilities shall be in compliance with
District's "Recycled Water Use Guidelines" and Dept. of Health
Services requirements for recycled water irrigation design.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of August 2014 by the following vote:
AYES: Bhuthimethee, O'Keefe, Do
NOES: Goel, Kohli
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Assistant Community Development Director
G:IPk20131PLPA-2013-00013 The Green GPA-SPA-PDIPC 08.26.141Att 4-SDR Reso.docx
32
RESOLUTION NO. xx-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL
FINDINGS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM UNDER CEQA FOR
THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT (PLPA-2013-00013)
(APNs 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-00, 986-0033-006-00)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place LLC, has submitted a
Planning Application to construct six residential neighborhoods with 372 units in multiple
buildings and a complementary commercial district with approximately 37,000 square feet of
future retail and restaurant buildings with associated outdoor seating areas on a 27.5-acre site.
The proposal includes the approval of General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendments, Rezoning properties to a new Planned Development Zoning District and approval
of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review (Commercial
Buildings only), Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement, and certification of a Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, among other related actions. These planning and
implementing actions are collectively known as "The Green Mixed Use Project" or the "Project";
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 Project Site is in Eastern Dublin for which the City adopted the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan to provide a comprehensive planning
framework for future development of the area. In connection with this approval, the City certified
a program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168 (SCH: 91103064, Resolution 51-93,
and Addendum dated August 22, 1994, hereinafter "Eastern Dublin EIR"), which is available for
review in the Planning Division and is incorporated herein by reference. The program EIR was
integral to the planning process and examined the direct and indirect effects, cumulative
impacts, broad policy alternatives, and area-wide mitigation measures for developing Eastern
Dublin, including the Project Site; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant environmental
impacts and related mitigation measures, which the City adopted together with mitigation
findings and a Mitigation Monitoring Program (Resolution 53-93, incorporated herein by
reference), which mitigation measures and monitoring program continue to apply to
development in Eastern Dublin, including the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR also identified potentially significant environmental
impacts that could not be avoided by mitigation and for which the City adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA (Resolution 53-93); and
1
WHEREAS, in 2004, the City approved amendments to the General Plan and the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change the land use designation on the Project site from
Campus Office to General Commercial, which would have allowed an IKEA furniture retail store
and other commercial uses on the site. Approved square footages included up to 317,000 for
the proposed IKEA facility and up to 137,000 square feet of retail space on a separate parcel
just east of the IKEA facility but on the same site. The City prepared a Supplemental EIR (SCH
#2003092076) to assess the impacts of that land use change ("IKEA SEIR"). The IKEA SEIR
evaluated the following impacts: Air Quality, Biological Resources, and Transportation and
Circulation. On March 16, 2004, the City certified the IKEA SEIR and adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for the following impacts: excessive levels of ozone precursors above
regulatory thresholds on a project and cumulative basis, excessive levels of carbon monoxide
emissions above regulatory thresholds, and increase of project traffic on local freeways on a
cumulative basis (City Council Resolution No. 44-04); and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study, dated July 11, 2013 ("Initial Study"), for
the Project, consistent with Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines
sections 15162 and 15163, in order to determine if a supplement to the Eastern Dublin EIR and
IKEA SEIR was required under CEQA standards. The Initial Study determined that a
supplement to the Eastern Dublin EIR and IKEA SEIR would be prepared to address certain
environmental impacts of the Project. The Initial Study also concluded that many of the
environmental impacts of the Project were within the scope of the Eastern Dublin EIR and IKEA
SEIR and that the certified Eastern Dublin EIR and IKEA SEIR adequately described and
analyzed these impacts for CEQA purposes; and
WHEREAS, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation, dated July 12, 2013, to public
agencies and interested parties for consultation on the scope of the EIR. The City also
conducted a public scoping meeting on July 30, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, dated
May 2014, ("Draft SEIR") for the proposed Project that reflected the City's independent
judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project. The Draft SEIR is
incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR was circulated for public review from May 7, 2014 to June 23,
2014 (45 days); and
WHEREAS, the City received comment letters from State, regional, and local agencies
and interested parties during the public review period. In accordance with the requirements of
CEQA, the City prepared written responses to all the comments received during the public
comment period. The City prepared a Final SEIR (that includes the Responses to Comments),
dated August 2014, for the proposed Project, which included an annotated copy of each
comment letter identifying specific comments, responses to each specific comment, and
clarifications and minor corrections to information presented in the Draft SEIR. The responses
to comments provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised
by the comments. The Draft and Final SEIR are attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution and
are incorporated herein by reference. The complete The Green Mixed Use Project SEIR
incorporates the Draft SEIR and the Final SEIR together and is referred to hereafter as "the
SEIR"; and
2
WHEREAS, the City carefully reviewed the comments and written responses and
determined that the Final SEIR, including the clarifications and minor corrections to the Draft
SEIR, does not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft SEIR
under the standards in CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
Project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. After reviewing the
Staff Report, the SEIR, including comments and responses, the Eastern Dublin EIR, the IKEA
SEIR, and other information in the record as a whole, the Planning Commission adopted a
Resolution 14-47 recommending that the City Council certify the SEIR, adopt certain findings,
and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which resolution is incorporated
herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated April 21, 2015 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project and the SEIR for the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Staff Report, the SEIR, including comments
and responses, at a noticed public hearing on April 21, 2015, at which time all interested parties
had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the SEIR, including comments and responses, reflects the City's
independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts from the Project;
and
WHEREAS, the EIR identified several potentially significant impacts that will be reduced
to a less than significant level with specified mitigation measures; therefore, approval of the
Project will require adoption of findings on impacts and mitigations as set forth in attached
Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, the EIR identified significant and unavoidable environmental impacts of the
Project; therefore, approval of the Project will require adoption of findings concerning mitigations
as set forth in attached Exhibit B, findings concerning alternatives as set forth in attached Exhibit
C, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in attached Exhibit D; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as required by CEQA, is
attached as Exhibit E; and
WHEREAS, the EIR and all the documents relating to the Project are available for review
in the City Planning Division at the Dublin City Hall, file PLPA-2013-00013, during normal
business hours. The location and custodian of the SEIR and other documents that constitute
the record of proceedings for the Project is the City of Dublin Community Development
Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, file PLPA-2013-00013.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Dublin City Council certifies the
following:
A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
3
B. The SEIR, consisting of the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR attached as Exhibit A, has been
completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Dublin
Environmental Guidelines.
C. The City Council has independently reviewed and considered the information contained
in the SEIR, including the written comments received during the Draft SEIR review period
and the oral and written comments received at the public hearing, prior to acting on the
Project.
D. The SEIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential
environmental impacts of the Project. The SEIR provides information to the decision-
makers and the public on the environmental consequences of the Project.
E. The SEIR adequately describes the Project, its significant environmental impacts,
mitigation measures, and a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council adopts the mitigation
measures and impact and mitigation findings set forth in Exhibit B, the findings concerning
feasibility of alternatives and additional mitigation measures set forth in Exhibit C, the Statement
of Overriding Considerations set forth in Exhibit D, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program set forth in Exhibit E. Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E are incorporated herein by reference,
all in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. .
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21st day of April 2015 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
4
City Council Meeting
November 4, 2014
The Green Mixed Use Project
Attachment 10, Exhibit A— Draft Supplemental EIR and Final EIR
http://www.dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7448
EXHIBIT B
FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
MEASURES
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, the City
Council hereby makes these findings with respect to the potential for significant environmental
impacts from adoption and implementation of The Green Mixed Use Project PLPA-2013-00013
("Project") and the means for mitigating those impacts. For the purpose of these findings, the
term "SEIR" means the Draft and Final SEIR documents collectively, unless otherwise
specified.
These findings do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact
contained in the SEIR. Instead, the findings provide a summary description of each impact,
describe the applicable mitigation measures identified in the SEIR and adopted by the City, and
state the findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation
measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in
the SEIR, and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in
those documents supporting the SEIR's determinations regarding mitigation measures and the
Project's impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. The facts
supporting these findings are found in the record as a whole for the Project.
In making these findings, the City ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the
analysis and explanation in the SEIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings
the determinations and conclusions of the SEIR relating to environmental impacts and
mitigation measures, except to the extent that any such determinations and conclusions are
specifically and expressly modified by these findings.
The Project also is subject to applicable mitigation measures in the certified Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan EIR (SCH: 91103064, Resolution No. 51-93, and Addendum dated August 22,
1994, hereinafter "EDSP EIR") and the certified Supplemental EIR for the IKEA project (SCH
#2003092076, Resolution No. 44-04), hereinafter "IKEA SEIR"), as described in the Initial
Study and SEIR. The City already made findings relating to those impacts and mitigation
measures as part of its certification of the EDSP EIR and approval of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan in Resolution No. 51-93, and certification of the IKEA EIR and approval of the
related General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment in Resolution No. 44-04. Therefore,
findings relating to these already-adopted mitigation measures are not made in these findings.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS ON TRAFFIC
Supplemental Impact TR-1: The Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road (#8) intersection
would degrade from LOS D to LOS E with the addition of Project trips during the AM
peak hour under Existing conditions.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
1
SM-TR-1. The following measures shall be required to improve the level of service at Dublin
Boulevard and Arnold Road (#8) intersection to within acceptable standard:
a) Add a 75-foot long southbound right turn lane with a 100-foot long taper area;
b) Convert the southbound shared through-right lane to through lane;
c) Optimize traffic signal split time.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: With the supplemental mitigation measure, the operations would
improve to acceptable levels of service, LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak
hour. Therefore, after applying the mitigation measure, the impact would be less than
significant.
Supplemental Impact TR-2: The Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road intersection
would operate at LOS E without the proposed Project during the PM peak hour under
Short-Term Cumulative conditions and implementation of the proposed Project would
add 50 or more trips to the intersection.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-2. The Eastern Dublin EIR MM 3.3/2.0 requires non-residential projects with 50 or
more employees to participate in the Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program. As
an alternative mitigation measure, the Project shall prepare a transportation demand
management (TDM) plan to encompass both commercial and residential uses as part of the
project. The project developer shall work with the City to develop the key elements of the TDM
plan,which shall be approved by the City prior to the issuance of the first building permit. The
TDM plan should include, but not be limited to, the following elements:
a) Appoint Transportation Coordinator to oversee the TDM program developed for the
project including program development,information distribution and program implementation.
b) Promote and distribute hard copy information quarterly to all employees and residents
regarding 511, Ridematch, Guaranteed Ride Home Program,Wheels/LAVTA, Altamont
Corridor Express (ACE), BART, shuttles to regional transit, and any car share programs.
c) Distribute information quarterly regarding above by email blast to all employees and
residents.
d) Co-sponsor subarea transportation fair once a year with "The Village" property to the
north and/or other developments in the East Dublin area. Invite Wheels, 511.org, and at least
two other commute alternative service providers to attend and distribute commute alternative
information.
e) Provide bicycle parking facilities for 20 percent of commercial car spaces or a number
approved by the City beyond the City's bicycle rack requirement.
0 Provide secured bicycle parking (lockers or cages) for employees.
g) Join City Car Share as a"Biz Prime" member and pay for membership of a minimum of
five percent employees.
2
h) Implement a BART subsidy program that would provide BART tickets at no cost or
subsidized rate to all employees.
i) Implement a Commuter Tax Benefit Program or equivalent. Under Section 132(F) of
federal tax code, an employer can offer its employees up to $245 per month for qualified transit,
vanpool or parking costs. or, an employer may offer $20 per month for bicycling costs. Full
information is available at: http://rideshare.511.org/rewards/tax_benefits.aspx
j) Provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools as part of off-street parking
requirements.
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR, but not
to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no
feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings
Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures.
Rationale for Finding: Even though such TDM measures collectively have the potential to
reduce traffic volumes and thereby improve the intersection delay levels,it is not guaranteed that
these measures would reduce the impacts to less than significant. No additional feasible
mitigation measures have been identified for the Project (see Exhibit C). The impact is
significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in
conjunction with approval of the Project.
Supplemental Impact TR-3: The Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive (#10)
intersection would degrade from LOS D to LOS E with the addition of Project trips
during the PM peak hour under Short-Term Cumulative conditions.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-3. Implement SM-TR-2.
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR, but not
to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no
feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings
Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures.
Rationale for Finding: Even though such TDM measures collectively have the potential to
reduce traffic volumes and thereby improve the intersection delay levels,it is not guaranteed that
these measures would reduce the impacts to less than significant. No additional feasible
mitigation measures have been identified for the Project (see Exhibit C). The impact is
significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in
conjunction with approval of the Project.
3
Supplemental Impact TR-4: The Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road intersection
would operate at LOS E without the proposed Project during the PM peak hour under
Short-Term Cumulative conditions and implementation of the proposed Project would
add 50 or more trips to the intersection.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-4. The following measures would be required to improve the level of service to within
acceptable standard:
a) Add an eastbound through lane to provide two left-turn lanes, three through lanes and
two right-turn lane on the eastbound approach on Dublin Boulevard; and
b) Provide a corresponding receiving lane on the east leg that extends from Tassajara Road
to Brannigan Street.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: Upon implementation of the above supplemental measure, the operation
would improve to LOS D. The required mitigation measure for this impact is identified in the
City's Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program as part of the widening of Dublin Boulevard to
six through lanes at this location. The Project shall make a fair share contribution toward these
improvements. The TIF fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first building permit.
With payment of fair share fee for implementation of improvement, the Project impact would
be less than significant.
Supplemental Impact TR-5: The Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive (#5) intersection
would operate at LOS E without the proposed Project during the AM peak hour under
Long-Term Cumulative conditions and the proposed Project would further degrade the
operations to LOS F and add 50 or more trips to the intersection.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-S. At the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive, there is a significant
impact from the Dublin Crossing project according to the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
(DCSP)-DEIR. In the DSCP-DEIR, the recommended measure to mitigate the impacts at the
intersection of Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard due to the high rate of
pedestrians/bicyclists crossing at Dublin Boulevard is a grade separated crossing. The grade
separated crossing would eliminate the need for at-grade pedestrian actuations at the traffic
signal,which would allow more green time to be allocated to through traffic on Dublin
Boulevard. Although the Dublin Crossings project has not been environmentally cleared, nor
has engineering or right of way analysis been completed with regards to the feasibility of this
improvement, the City is aggressively pursuing this project to improve pedestrian and bicycle
4
mobility along the Iron Horse Trail. The City also plans to include a grade separated crossing at
this location in its update to the TIF program to secure project funding. Because the separated
bridge has not yet been environmentally cleared, and to ensure that the impacts are adequately
mitigated, the Applicant/Developer is required to provide a fair-share contribution for the
alternative mitigation of removing the crosswalk on the east leg of the Scarlett Drive and Dublin
Boulevard intersection.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: With the construction of the grade separation structure as planned, the
impact will be less than significant. However,in the event that the grade separation is not
constructed by 2035, the removal of the crosswalk on the east leg of the Scarlett Drive and
Dublin Boulevard intersection will also result in a less than significant impact. The Project is
required to make a fair share contribution to the construction of this improvement. The
project's fair share contribution shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first building permit.
Supplemental Impact TR-6: The Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road (#8) intersection
would degrade from LOS D to LOS E with the addition of Project trips during the AM
peak hour under Long-Term Cumulative conditions.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-6. The following measures would be required to improve the level of service to within
acceptable standard:
a) Modify the traffic signal phasing to provide a protected/ permitted overlap phase for the
southbound right-turn movement and prohibit conflicting eastbound U-turn movement; and
b) Optimize traffic signal split time.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: Upon implementation of the above mitigation measure, the operations
would improve to LOS D. Because the impact is caused by cumulative land use growth in the
region, the Project developer shall make a fair share contribution toward these improvements.
The fair share contribution shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first building permit. With
payment of a fair share fee for implementation of the measure, the Project's impact will be less
than significant.
Supplemental Impact TR-7: The southbound left-turn queue at the Dublin Boulevard
and Dougherty Road intersection would exceed turn pocket capacity without the
5
proposed Project during the PM peak hour and the proposed Project would lengthen the
queue by 25 feet or more under Short-Term Cumulative conditions.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-7. Optimization of the traffic signal phase time would reduce the 95th percentile queue
length for the southbound left turn to 371 feet during the PM peak hour. While the queue
length would still exceed the turn pocket storage, the project traffic would lengthen the queue by
less than 25 feet.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: Because the impact is caused by cumulative land use growth in the
region, the Project developer shall make a fair share contribution toward the improvement. The
fair share contribution shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first building permit. With
payment of a fair share fee for implementation of the measure, the Project's impact will be less
than significant.
Supplemental Impact TR-8: The westbound left-turn queue at the Dublin Boulevard
and Hacienda Drive (#10) intersection would exceed turn pocket capacity without the
proposed Project during the AM peak hour, and implementation of the proposed Project
would lengthen the queue by 25 feet or more under Short-Term Cumulative conditions.
Further, during the PM peak, the Project would cause the queue to extend beyond the
turn pocket by 25 feet when it would be contained under No Project scenario.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-B. The traffic signal at this intersection shall be modified to provide additional green
time for the westbound left-turn movement by reducing the green time for the eastbound
through movement. This will reduce the queue length to 420 feet in the AM peak hour and 270
feet in the PM peak hour. While the queue lengths would still exceed turn pocket capacity, the
project traffic would lengthen the queue by less than 25 feet in the AM peak hour and would
cause the queue to extend beyond the turn pocket by less than 25 feet in the PM peak hour.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: Because the impact is caused by cumulative land use growth in the
region, the Project developer shall make a fair share contribution toward the improvement. The
fair share contribution shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first building permit. With
6
payment of a fair share fee for implementation of the measure, the Project's impact will be less
than significant.
Supplemental Impact TR-9: The southbound left-turn queue at the Scarlett Drive and
Dougherty Road intersection would exceed turn pocket capacity without the proposed
Project during the PM peak hour, and implementation of the proposed Project would
lengthen the queue by 25 feet or more under Long-Term Cumulative conditions.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-9. The traffic signal phasing at this intersection shall be modified to provide additional
green time for the southbound left-turn movement. This will reduce the queue length by 12 feet
to 845 feet and to within acceptable threshold. Because the impact is caused by cumulative land
use growth in the region, the project developer shall make a fair share contribution toward this
improvement. The fair share contribution shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first building
permit.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Because the impact is caused by cumulative land use growth in the
region, the project developer shall make a fair share contribution toward the improvement. The
fair share contribution shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first building permit. With
payment of a fair share fee for implementation of the measure, the Project's impact will be less
than significant.
Supplemental Impact TR-10: The Project would cause the Dublin Boulevard segment
between Hacienda Drive and Hibernia Drive to degrade from LOS D to LOS E during
the AM peak hour under Existing Conditions. The Project would only add 30 trips to
this segment.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-10. Implement SM-TR-2.
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR, but not
to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no
feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings
Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures.
7
Rationale for Finding: Even though such TDM measures collectively have the potential to
reduce traffic volumes and thereby improve the intersection delay levels,it is not guaranteed that
these measures would reduce the impacts to less than significant. No additional feasible
mitigation measures have been identified for the Project (see Exhibit C). The impact is
significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in
conjunction with approval of the Project.
Supplemental Impact TR-11: The Project would cause the northbound Hacienda Drive
segment of Dublin Boulevard to Central Parkway to degrade from LOS D to LOS E.
Project traffic would also cause the volume to capacity ratio of the northbound Hacienda
Drive segment between I-580 westbound ramp to Hacienda Crossings to increase by
0.071.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-11. Implement SM-TR-2.
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR, but not
to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no
feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings
Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures.
Rationale for Finding: Even though such TDM measures collectively have the potential to
reduce traffic volumes and thereby improve the intersection delay levels,it is not guaranteed that
these measures would reduce the impacts to less than significant. No additional feasible
mitigation measures have been identified for the Project (see Exhibit C). The impact is
significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in
conjunction with approval of the Project.
Supplemental Impact TR-12: The Project would cause the volume to capacity ratio
along the eastbound Dublin Boulevard segment between DeMarcus Boulevard and Iron
Horse Parkway to increase by 0.03, where it would operate at LOS E in the PM peak
hour under the Short-Term Cumulative No Project scenario.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-12. Implement SM-TR-2.
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR, but not
to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no
8
feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings
Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures.
Rationale for Finding: Even though such TDM measures collectively have the potential to
reduce traffic volumes and thereby improve the intersection delay levels,it is not guaranteed that
these measures would reduce the impacts to less than significant. No additional feasible
mitigation measures have been identified for the Project (see Exhibit C). The impact is
significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in
conjunction with approval of the Project.
Supplemental Impact TR-13: The Project would cause the volume to capacity ratio
along the westbound Dublin Boulevard segment between Scarlett Drive and Dougherty
Road to increase by 0.027, where it would operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour under
the Short-Term Cumulative No Project scenario.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-13. Implement SM-TR-2.
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR, but not
to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no
feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings
Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures.
Rationale for Finding: Even though such TDM measures collectively have the potential to
reduce traffic volumes and thereby improve the intersection delay levels,it is not guaranteed that
these measures would reduce the impacts to less than significant. No additional feasible
mitigation measures have been identified for the Project (see Exhibit C). The impact is
significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in
conjunction with approval of the Project.
Supplemental Impact TR-14: The Project would cause the volume to capacity ratio
along the northbound Hacienda Drive segment between I-580 westbound ramps and
Hacienda Crossing to increase by 0.045, where it would operate at LOS E in the AM
peak hour, and by 0.071, where it would operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour, under
the Short-Term Cumulative No Project scenario.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-14. Implement SM-TR-2.
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
9
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR, but not
to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no
feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C. Findings
Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures.
Rationale for Finding: Even though such TDM measures collectively have the potential to
reduce traffic volumes and thereby improve the intersection delay levels,it is not guaranteed that
these measures would reduce the impacts to less than significant. No additional feasible
mitigation measures have been identified for the Project (see Exhibit C). The impact is
significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in
conjunction with approval of the Project.
Supplemental Impact TR-15: The Project would cause the northbound Tassajara Road
segment between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway to degrade from LOS D to
LOS E during the PM peak hour under Short-Term Cumulative conditions. While the
project would only add 4 trips to this segment, this impact is considered to be
significant.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-15. Implement SM-TR-2.
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR, but not
to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no
feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings
Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures.
Rationale for Finding: Even though such TDM measures collectively have the potential to
reduce traffic volumes and thereby improve the intersection delay levels,it is not guaranteed that
these measures would reduce the impacts to less than significant. No additional feasible
mitigation measures have been identified for the Project (see Exhibit C). The impact is
significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in
conjunction with approval of the Project.
Supplemental Impact TR-16: The Project would cause the volume to capacity ratios
along the westbound Dublin Boulevard segments between Iron Horse Parkway and
Camp Parks, where it would operate at LOS E, and between Camp Parks and Scarlett
Drive, where it would operate at LOS F, in the AM peak hour under the Long-Term
Cumulative No Project scenario to increase by 0.023.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
10
SM-TR-16. Implement SM-TR-2
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR, but not
to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no
feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings
Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures.
Rationale for Finding: Even though such TDM measures collectively have the potential to
reduce traffic volumes and thereby improve the intersection delay levels,it is not guaranteed that
these measures would reduce the impacts to less than significant. No additional feasible
mitigation measures have been identified for the Project (see Exhibit C). The impact is
significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in
conjunction with approval of the Project.
Supplemental Impact TR-17: The Project would cause the volume to capacity ratio
along the northbound Hacienda Drive segment between I-580 westbound ramps and
Hacienda Crossing to increase by 0.02 during the PM peak hour, where it would operate
at LOS F under the Long-Term Cumulative No Project scenario.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-17. Implement SM-TR-2.
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR, but not
to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no
feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings
Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures.
Rationale for Finding: Even though such TDM measures collectively have the potential to
reduce traffic volumes and thereby improve the intersection delay levels,it is not guaranteed that
these measures would reduce the impacts to less than significant. No additional feasible
mitigation measures have been identified for the Project (see Exhibit C). The impact is
significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in
conjunction with approval of the Project.
Supplemental Impact TR-18: The Project could conflict with adopted bicycle plans,
guidelines, policies, or standards.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
11
SM-TR-18. Prior to the issuance of any permit for the project, the Applicant shall prepared
final Site Improvement Plans for both onsite and offsite improvements that are consistent with
the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map plans,which have been
determined to be consistent with applicable City guidelines,policies and standards,including but
not limited to the City of Dublin General Plan Community Design & Sustainability Element,
Chapter 8.76 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, and the Bikeway Master Plan, for review and
approval by the City.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: The Project has been designed to comply with applicable City guidelines,
policies and standards for bicycle use and plans. The City will review the final Site Improvement
Plans to confirm consistency with these standards. The requirement for the Project to be
consistent with these standards will result in a less than significant impact.
Supplemental Impact TR-19: The Project could conflict with adopted policies,plans, or
programs supporting pedestrians.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-19. Prior to the issuance of any permit for the project, the Applicant shall prepared
final Site Improvement Plans for both onsite and offsite improvements that are consistent with
the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map plans,which have been
determined to be consistent with applicable City guidelines,policies and standards,including but
not limited to the City of Dublin General Plan Community Design & Sustainability Element,
Chapter 8.76 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, and the Bikeway Master Plan, for review and
approval by the City.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: The Project has been designed to comply with applicable City guidelines,
policies and standards for pedestrian use and plans. The City will review the final Site
Improvement Plans to confirm consistency with these standards. The requirement for the
Project to be consistent with these standards will result in a less than significant impact.
Supplemental Impact TR-20: The project could conflict with adopted policies,plans, or
programs supporting pedestrians, including the City's Complete Streets policies.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
12
SM-TR-20. Prior to issuance of any permit for the project, the Project shall submit design
plans that are consistent with the City's Complete Street Policy and design standards for review
and approval by the City.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: The Project has been designed to comply with the City's Complete Street
Policy. The City will review the final plans to confirm consistency with these standards. The
requirement for the Project to be consistent with these standards will result in a less than
significant impact.
Supplemental Impact TR-21: The Project could include design features that would not
be consistent with the City's engineering design standards or standards published by the
ITE or Caltrans.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-21. Prior to issuance of any permit for the project, the project developer shall submit
design plans that are consistent with the City's Complete Street Policy for review and approval
by the City. All designs shall conform to City standards.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: The Project has been designed to comply with the City's design
standards. The City will review the final plans to confirm consistency with these standards. The
requirement for the Project to be consistent with these standards will result in a less than
significant impact.
Supplemental Impact TR-22: Project construction activities, such as the import of the
fill material and delivery of materials, could result in impacts to vehicle, bicycle, and
pedestrian access in and around the Project area.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-22. Before issuance of grading permits for the project, the project developer shall
prepare a detailed Traffic Management Plan that will be subject to review and approval by the
City of Dublin, LAVTA, and local emergency service providers,including the City of Dublin
Fire Prevention Bureau and the City of Dublin Police Services Department. The plan shall
ensure maintenance of acceptable operating conditions on local roadways and transit routes. At
a minimum, the plan shall include:
13
a) The number of truck trips, time, and day of street closures
b) Time of day of arrival and departure of trucks
c) limitations on the size and type of trucks;provision of a staging area with a limitation on
the number of trucks that can be waiting
d) Provision of a truck circulation pattern
e) Provision of a driveway access plan to maintain safe vehicular,pedestrian, and bicycle
movements (e.g., steel plates, minimum distances of open trenches, and private vehicle pick up
and drop off areas)
0 Safe and efficient access routes for emergency vehicles
g) Efficient and convenient transit routes
h) Manual traffic control when necessary
i) Proper advance warning and posted signage concerning street closures
j) Provisions for pedestrian safety and access.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: The Traffic Management Plan with the required elements will result in a
less than significant impact on vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian access in and around the Project
area.
Supplemental Impact Park-1: Build-out of the proposed Project would require the
dedication of 5 acres of local parkland on the Project site. The proposed Project
provides no public park space.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-Park-1. Prior to approval of the first Final Subdivision Map for the project, the project
developer(s) shall satisfy the requirement to provide parkland through the payment of in-lieu
fees to the City of Dublin prior to issuance of building permits.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: The requirement to meet the 5-acre parkland standard through the
Project developer's payment of in-lieu fees to the City prior to issuance of building permits will
ensure that Project impacts are less than significant.
Supplemental Impact BI0-1: The proposed Project would result in the fill of potentially
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and/or waters of the State.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
14
SM-13I0-1. The applicant shall undertake the following prior to issuance of a grading plan for
the site:
a) A wetland delineation shall be completed for the site consistent with U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers protocols.
b) If jurisdictional wetlands are found on the site and if avoidance of these jurisdictional
waters on the site is not feasible, suitable compensatory mitigation shall be provided based on
the concept of no net loss of wetland habitat values or acreages. In such an eventuality, a
wetland mitigation plan shall be developed and implemented that includes creation,restoration,
and/or enhancement of off-site wetlands prior to project ground disturbance. Mitigation areas
shall be established in perpetuity through dedication of a conservation easement (or similar
mechanism) to an approved environmental organization and payment of an endowment for the
long-term management of the site. If wetlands are determined to be jurisdictional under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, the mitigation plan will be subject to the review and approval of the
Corps and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). If the potential seasonal wetlands
are non-jurisdictional under Section 404, the mitigation plan will be subject to the review and
approval of the RWQCB.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: Implementation of the above supplemental mitigation measure will
reduce this impact to a less than significant level, both on a project and cumulative level. The
supplemental mitigation measure requires that if jurisdictional waters are identified on the site
and cannot be avoided as part of the development, compensatory wetlands shall be secured so
that no net loss of wetlands will occur. For impacted wetlands, the mitigation requires
development of a wetland mitigation plan that meets specified standards for creation,
restoration, and/or enhancement of off-site wetlands prior to Project ground disturbance
Supplemental Impact BIO-2: Approval and construction of the proposed Project would
impact Congdon's tarplant and other special-status plant species on the site.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-13I0-2. Focused surveys for special-status plants shall be conducted on the site consistent
with the California Department of Fish &Wildlife's 2009 Protocols for Surveying and
Evaluating Impacts to Special-Status Populations and natural Communities. Plant surveys shall
be conducted throughout the blooming period throughout the blooming period of those special-
status for which suitable habitat is present. Two or three separate surveys may be required to
cover the blooming period of plants listed in Appendix Ai of the Supplemental Biological
Analysis (Appendix 8.7 of the DSEIR). If populations/stands of a special-status species are
identified during the surveys and impacts cannot be avoided, compensatory mitigation shall be
provided, such as the acquisition of off-site mitigation areas presently supporting the species in
question,purchase of credits in a mitigation bank that is approved to sell credits for the affected
15
species, or payment of in-lieu fees to a public agency or conservation organization (e.g., a local
land trust) for the preservation and management of existing populations. The location of
mitigation sites shall be determined in consultation with and subject to approval of US Fish and
Wildlife Service and/or California Department of Fish &Wildlife. In the case where special-
status plants are neither federal- or state-listed, the lead agency shall approve the mitigation
approach using the guidance provided by the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy in
consultation with the City's consulting biologist. Off-site compensatory shall be acquired at a
minimum acreage ratio of 1:1 (acquired: impacted). For off-site mitigation options, measures
shall be implemented (including contingency measures) providing for the long-term protection
of these species.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: Implementation of the above supplemental mitigation measure will
reduce this impact to a less than significant level, both on a project and cumulative level. If
impacts cannot be avoided, the supplemental mitigation measure requires acquisition and
preservation of suitable off-site habitats for impacted special-status plant species,in accordance
with certain standards prior to site development
Supplemental Impact 13I0-3: The proposed Project could impact the habitat for nesting
or wintering burrowing owl by disturbing the existing ground surface.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-13I0-3. Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted for burrowing owls prior to grading or
construction activities. These surveys should conform to the survey protocol established in the
Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012b). The Conservation Strategy depicts
the project site as being located in Conservation Zone 2,which supports 11 percent of the
Conservation Strategy's study area's unprotected potential habitat for burrowing owl).
Burrowing owls could nest or winter in the site's approximate 13 acres of ruderal/disturbed
non-native grassland habitat and within the suitable grassland habitat adjacent to the site. The
following measures are consistent with the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the
California Department of Fish &Wildlife standards.
a) No more than 14 days prior to any ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall
conduct a take avoidance survey for burrowing owls. If no owls are found during this first
survey, a final survey will be conducted within 48 hours prior to ground disturbance to confirm
that burrowing owls are still absent. If ground disturbing activities are delayed or suspended for
more than 14 days after the initial take avoidance survey, the site shall be resurveyed (including
the final survey within 48 hours of disturbance). All surveys shall be conducted in accordance
with California Department of Fish &Wildlife guidelines.
b) If burrowing owls are found on the site during the surveys, mitigation shall be
implemented in accordance with applicable California Department of Fish &Wildlife standards.
More specifically,if the surveys identify breeding or wintering burrowing owls on or adjacent to
16
the site, occupied burrows cannot be disturbed and shall be provided with protective buffers.
Where avoidance is not feasible during the non-breeding season, a site-specific exclusion plan
(i.e., a plan that considers the type and extent of the proposed activity, the duration and timing
of the activity, the sensitivity and habituation of the owls, and the dissimilarity of the proposed
activity with background activities) shall be implemented to encourage owls to move away from
the work area prior to construction and to minimize the potential to affect the reproductive
success of the owls. The exclusion plan shall be subject to California Fish &Wildlife approval
and monitoring requirements. Compensatory mitigation could also be required by California
Fish &Wildlife as part of the approval of an exclusion plan. Mitigation may include the
permanent protection of habitat at a nearby off-site location acceptable to the California
Department of Fish &Wildlife.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: Mitigation Measure 3.7/27.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR
reduced impacts to burrowing owl to a less than significant level. This supplemental mitigation
measure provides enhanced mitigation that is consistent with current California Department of
Fish and Wildlife standards. The measure requires completion of a preconstruction survey for
burrowing owl and,if found,implementation of an exclusion zone around nests and
development of an exclusion plan with protective buffers and/or compensatory mitigation
under California Department of Fish and Wildlife standards. With adherence to this mitigation
measure, this impact will be less than significant.
Supplemental Impact BIO-4: Construction of the proposed Project could impact
breeding birds on the site.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-13I0-4. Vegetation removal and/or initial ground disturbance on the site shall occur during
the non-breeding season from September 1 to January 31. If instead these actions will occur
from February 1 to August 31, then a pre-construction breeding bird survey shall be conducted
no more than 14 days prior to construction. Any common bird active nests found shall be
protected by a minimum 50-foot exclusion buffer. The buffer size may vary depending on bird
species, the location of the nest, and other factors. If a breeding bird survey determines that a
special-status species is located on the site, a larger buffer would be required, such as a 100-foot
buffer for minor disturbances and a 250-foot buffer for major disturbances. In the case of
special-status species, the size of buffers and other measures would be implemented based on
any applicable CDFW guidance and standards.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
17
Rationale for Finding: The mitigation will reduce impacts to breeding birds that may nest on or
immediately adjacent to the site to a less than significant level by prohibiting Project
construction during the nesting season. If this cannot be met, a preconstruction survey for
nesting birds shall be completed and,if found, a protective buffer shall be established around
identified nests.
Supplemental Impact BIO-5: Construction of the proposed Project could impact
special-status bats that could inhabit the site, specifically the removal of the existing
building.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-BIO-S. The marketing building shall be removed from the premises during September or
October. Pre-construction surveys of the marketing building for bats shall occur no more than
30 days before its removal. If bats are found, a qualified biologist shall develop an appropriate
relocation plan consistent with US Fish &Wildlife, California Department of Fish &Wildlife
and EACCS standards and policies.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: The mitigation will result in a less than significant impact because the
marketing building shall be removed from the premises during September or October when the
building is not likely to be inhabited by bats. Pre-construction surveys of the marketing building
for bats shall occur no more than 30 days before its removal. If bats are found, a qualified
biologist shall develop an appropriate relocation plan consistent with US Fish &Wildlife,
California Department of Fish &Wildlife, and EACCS standards and policies.
Supplemental Impact NOISE-1: Residential land uses proposed by the Project could be
exposed to exterior noise levels exceeding 60 dBA CNEL and interior noise levels
exceeding 45 dBA CNEL.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure:
SM-NOISE-1. Reduce exterior and interior noise levels in noise sensitive areas of the project
to meet City standards. To meet City noise standards, the following mitigation shall be used:
• Locate noise-sensitive outdoor use areas away from Interstate 580. Ensure that all
residents have access to outdoor use areas that achieve exterior noise criteria (60 dBA CNEL for
residential uses).
• A suitable form of forced-air mechanical ventilation, as determined by the local building
official, shall be provided for units throughout the site, so that windows can be kept closed at
the occupant's discretion to control interior noise and achieve the interior noise standards.
18
• For the first row of buildings facing Interstate 580, the buildings shall be designed to
have sealed windows and no balconies on elevations facing the freeway.
• For residential uses, noise insulation features shall be designed to achieve the 45 dBA
CNEL interior noise standard. Sound rated windows and doors shall be provided to maintain
interior noise levels at acceptable levels. Additional treatments may include, but are not limited
to, sound rated wall construction, acoustical caulking,insulation, acoustical vents, etc. Large
windows and doors should be oriented away from the I-580 where possible. Bedrooms should
be located away from I-580.
• The final specifications for noise insulation treatments shall be reviewed by a qualified
acoustical consultant during final design of the project to ensure that exterior and interior noise
levels on site achieve the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard for residential uses and hourly
average noise levels to 45 dBA Leq for commercial uses. Results of the analysis,including the
description of the necessary interior and exterior noise control treatments, shall be submitted to
the City along with the building plans and shall approved by the City prior to issuance of a
building permit.
• The final design and location of project mechanical equipment shall be reviewed by a
qualified acoustical consultant to confirm that operational noise levels would not exceed 60 dBA
CNEL at exterior project residential uses and would not exceed 45 dBA CNEL inside these
residences. If needed, the final design and location of mechanical equipment shall be modified
to conform with noise parameters set forth in this analysis.
• A truck delivery plan shall be submitted to the City for the commercial portion of the
project site,which would include the proposed hours of allowable deliveries and the locations
and routes of the delivery trucks on the project site. A qualified acoustical consultant shall
review the delivery plan to ensure that interior and exterior noise levels on site achieve
acceptable levels. The truck delivery plan and acoustical consultant report shall be subject to
approval by the City prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any commercial
building.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: Adherence to this mitigation measure will ensure that all uses on site
comply with City noise standards. Therefore, the impact will be less than significant.
Supplemental Impact SM-AQ-1: Construction activities, particularly during site
preparation and grading, would temporarily generate fugitive dust in the form of PM10
and PM2.5 and exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and equipment.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-AQ-1. The project applicant shall adhere to the following dust control measures,which
shall replace those included in EDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0:
a) All exposed surfaces (e.g.,parking areas, staging areas, soil piles,graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
19
b) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be
covered.
c) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using
wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is
prohibited.
d) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
e) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil
binders are used.
0 Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics
control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage
shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
g) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance
with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
h) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the
Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action
within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: With implementation of the mitigation measures in compliance with
current Air District standards, the impacts from construction activities will be reduced to less
than significant.
Supplemental Impact AQ-2 [Impact AQ-1 in Draft SEIR]: The Project operations would
result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the
Project region is in non-attainment under applicable Federal or State ambient air quality
standards due to emissions of NOX.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-AQ-2. The project applicant shall reduce future residential and employee trips through a
Traffic Demand Management (TDM) program approved by the City and including, but not
limited to, the following measures:
a) Appoint Transportation Coordinator to oversee the TDM program developed for the
project including program development,information distribution and program implementation.
b) Promote and distribute hard copy information quarterly to all employees and residents
regarding 511, Ridematch, Guaranteed Ride Home Program,Wheels/LAVTA, Altamont
Corridor Express (ACE), BART, shuttles to regional transit, and any car share programs.
20
c) Distribute information quarterly regarding above by email blast to all employees and
residents.
d) Co-sponsor subarea transportation fair once a year with "The Village" property to the
north and/or other developments in the East Dublin area. Invite Wheels, 511.org, and at least
two other commute alternative service providers to attend and distribute commute alternative
information.
e) Provide bicycle parking facilities for 20 percent of commercial car spaces or a number
approved by the City beyond the City's bicycle rack requirement.
0 Provide secured bicycle parking (lockers or cages) for employees.
g) Join City Car Share as a"Biz Prime" member and pay for membership of a minimum of
five percent employees.
h) Implement a BART subsidy program that would provide BART tickets at no cost or
subsidized rate to all employees.
i) Implement a Commuter Tax Benefit Program or equivalent. Under Section 132(F) of
federal tax code, an employer can offer its employees up to $245 per month for qualified transit,
vanpool or parking costs. Or, an employer may offer $20 per month for bicycling costs. Full
information is available at: http://rideshare.511.org/rewards/tax_benefits.aspx
j) Provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools as part of off-street parking
requirements.
k) Provide shading in the parking lot, to the maximum extent possible, to reduce
evaporative ROG emissions.
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR, but not
to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no
feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings
Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures.
Rationale for Finding: Even with the TDM program in place,it is not certain that annual NOX
emissions would be reduced below 10 tons per year because it is not possible to quantify
possible emissions reductions with certainty. Therefore, even with the TDM program in place,
operational NOX emissions could still exceed the established significance thresholds. No
additional feasible mitigation measures have been identified for the Project (see Exhibit C). The
impact is significant and unavoidable, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required
in conjunction with approval of the Project.
Supplemental Project Impact AQ-2 (violation of air quality standards). The Project
would result in a violation of regional air quality standards and would contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures: SM-AQ 2
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
21
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR, but not
to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no
feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C. Findings
Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures.
Rationale for Finding: Even with the TDM program in place, the exact amount of emissions
reductions cannot be calculated with certainty. No additional feasible mitigation measures have
been identified for the Project (see Exhibit C). The impact is significant and unavoidable and a
Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in conjunction with approval of the Project.
Supplemental Impact AQ-3: The Project would conflict with the regional Clean Air
Plan.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-AQ-3. Implement SM-AQ-2.
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR, but not
to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no
feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings
Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures.
Rationale for Finding: As discussed above,implementation of the Project would result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the Project region is in
non-attainment under applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standards; therefore, the
Project is inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan because the Project would not support the Clean
Air Plan's goal of attaining air quality standards. Even with the TDM program in place, the
exact amount of emissions reductions cannot be calculated with certainty. No additional
feasible mitigation measures have been identified for the Project (see Exhibit C). The impact is
significant and unavoidable, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in
conjunction with approval of the Project.
Supplemental Impact AQ-4: The Project would expose sensitive receptors to excess
cancer risk and PM2.5 concentrations that are above health-based thresholds.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-AQ-3. The project shall include the following measures to minimize long-term toxic air
contaminant JAC) exposure for new residences:
a. Ensure that no residential buildings would have a full year of occupancy prior to
1/1/2017.
22
b. Design buildings and site to limit exposure from sources of TAC and fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) emissions. The site layout shall locate windows and air intakes as far as possible
from I-580 traffic lanes. Any modifications to the site design shall incorporate buffers between
residences and the freeway.
c. To the greatest degree possible,plant vegetation along the project site boundary with I-
580 that includes trees and shrubs that provide a dense vegetative barrier.
d. Install air filtration in residential buildings at roof top level that have predicted cancer
risks in excess of 10 in one million or PM2.5 concentrations above 0.3 micrograms per cubic
meter (µg/m3) as shown in Exhibit 4.7-4. The type of air filtration device shall be as set forth in
subsection e below.. To ensure adequate health protection to sensitive receptors, a ventilation
system shall meet the following minimal design standards (Department of Public Health, City
and County of San Francisco, 2008):
• At least one air exchange(s) per hour of fresh outside filtered air;
• At least four air exchange(s) per hour recirculation; and
• At least 0.25 air exchange(s) per hour in unfiltered infiltration.
e. The type of MERV- rated filtration required to be installed as part of the ventilation
system in the residential buildings shall be as follows:
1) MERV13 filtration shall be installed in a residential building partially or completed
located in an area where the cancer risk is 10 per one million or greater but less than or equal to
22 per one million as shown in Exhibit 4.7-4 for unmitigated cancer risks.
2) MERV16 filtration shall be installed in a residential building partially or completed
located in an area where the cancer risk is greater than 22 per one million and less than 50 per
one million as shown in Exhibit 4.7-4 for unmitigated cancer risks.
3) MERV16 filtration and sealed,inoperable windows and no balconies on building
elevations facing I-580 freeway (MERV 16 Plus) shall be installed in a residential building
partially or completed located in an area where the cancer risk is a greater than or equal to 50 per
one million and less than 62.5 per one million as shown in Exhibit 4.7-4 for unmitigated cancer
risks.
4) In areas where the cancer risk is 62.5 per one million or greater,residential units shall
not be built unless the developer includes specific mitigation measures that are approved by a
qualified air quality consultant and the City that results in a reduction of the cancer risk to below
10 per one million.
f. As part of implementing this measure, an ongoing maintenance plan for the buildings'
heating,ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) air filtration system shall be required.
Recognizing that emissions from air pollution sources are decreasing, the maintenance period
shall last as long as significant excess cancer risk or annual PM2.5 exposures are predicted.
Subsequent studies may be conducted by an air quality expert approved by the City to identify
the ongoing need for the filtered ventilation systems as future information becomes available.
g. Ensure that the lease agreement and other property documents (1) require cleaning,
maintenance, and monitoring of the affected buildings for air flow leaks; (2) include assurance
that new owners and tenants are provided information on the ventilation system; and (3) include
provisions that fees associated with owning or leasing a unit(s) in the building include funds for
cleaning, maintenance, monitoring, and replacements of the filters, as needed.
h. Consider phasing developments located closest to I-580 to avoid significant excess
cancer risks and required installation of filtered ventilation systems (described above). Note that
new United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) engines standards combined
23
with California Air Resources Board (CARB) rules and regulations will reduce on-road emissions
of diesel particulate matter (DPM) and PM2.5 substantially, especially after 2014.
i. Require that,prior to building occupancy, an authorized air pollutant consultant verify
the installation of all necessary measures to reduce toxic air contaminant JAC) exposure as set
forth in this mitigation measure.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the health risk to
future residents would be below the significance threshold. Therefore, the impact will be less
than significant.
Supplemental Impact AQ-5: The Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions,
both directly and indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment
and would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-AQ-4. The final design of the project shall include all requirements of the City Climate
Action Plan,including policies A.1.4 (Bicycle Parking Requirements),A.1.5 (Streetscape Master
Plan),A.1.8 (General Plan Community Design and Sustainability Element),A.1.9 (Work with
LAVTA to Improve Transit), A.2.1 (Green Building Ordinance),A.2.5 (LED Streetlight
Specifications),A.3.1 (Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance),A.3.6 (Commercial
Recycling). In addition, the project proponent is encouraged to participate in subsidy programs
such as Climate Action Plan polices A.2.4 (Reduced Solar Installation Permit Fee) and A.3.5
(Commercial Food Waste Collection Program), and non-subsidy programs such as policies A.3.7
(Multi-Family Recycling),A.3.8 (Curbside Recycling), and A.3.9 (Curbside Organics Collection).
Implementation of these mitigation measure would reduce GHG emissions, but not below the
significance thresholds. The project, as a whole, shall adopt a water use reduction goal of at
least 20 percent. A water use reduction plan shall be developed by the project applicant that may
include measures such as the installation of low-flow water fixtures in showers and sinks,low-
flush toilets, and the use of water efficient landscaping. The project applicant shall implement a
solid waste recycling program through recycling and composting strategies,which results in a
project-wide solid waste diversion rate of at least 20 percent. Finally, the project shall exceed
2008 Title 24 Building Standards (which CalEEMOd is based on) by at least 20 percent in terms
of energy-efficiency. The project shall implement the supplemental list of greenhouse gas
reduction measures included as Attachment 6 to the Final SEIR.
Resulting Significance: Less than significant (consistency with City Climate Action Plan);
Significant and Unavoidable (GHG emissions levels)
24
Finding: Consistency with City Climate Action Plan—Implementation of the mitigation will
ensure that the Project complies with the reduction measures under the City's Climate Action
Plan and will result in a less than significant impact. Project GHG emissions — Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR, but not to a level of less than
significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that
avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C. Findings Concerning Infeasibility
of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures.
Rationale for Finding: Compliance with City Climate Action Plan—Implementation of the
mitigation will ensure that the Project complies with the applicable reduction measures under
the City's Climate Action Plan and will result in a less than significant impact. Project GHG
emissions —The Project emissions of greenhouse gases would exceed the BAAQMD
significance thresholds, even with implementation of the identified mitigation measures. No
additional feasible mitigation measures have been identified for the Project (see Exhibit C). The
impact is significant, and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required
in conjunction with approval of the Project.
Supplemental Impact HAZ-1: The site has been remediated for commercial and other
non-residential land uses. As a part of the site management terms that were approved
when the remediation occurred in 2010, the Alameda County Department of
Environmental Health (ACDEH) required that, if any residential or other similar land
use is proposed at the Property, the ACDEH must be notified. ACDEH will then re-
evaluate the case upon receipt of approved development/construction plans
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-HAZ-1. The Applicant/Developer shall notify ACDEH of the proposed project and the
intent to utilize the site for residential uses so ACDEH can re-evaluate the case. If directed by
ACDEH, a Phase II site investigation or site health risk assessment shall be completed for
portions of the site anticipated for residential development and excavation prior to issuance of a
grading and/or site improvement permit. The site investigation shall be coordinated with the
Alameda County Department of Environmental Health. The investigation plan shall include a
description of the work to be performed, the laboratory analytical methods to be uses and
requirements for quality control. If additional remediation is necessary, a remediation plan shall
be prepared and approved by the ACDEH. Grading or excavation of any identified
contaminated residential area on the site shall not occur until ACDEH issues a closure letter
authorizing residential uses on the site. The Applicant/Developer shall provide the City with
documentation that the above actions have taken place. To protect the health and safety of
construction workers, Health and Safety Plan that meets the federal Occupational Safety and
Health Administration requirements shall be prepared and implemented if additional
remediation is required.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
25
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: Adherence to the supplemental mitigation measure will reduce this
impact to a less than significant level by requiring additional site testing and remediation,if
required by regulatory agencies, before grading for residential uses are allowed.
Supplemental Impact HAZ-2: If required, construction dewatering activities could
release identified accumulations of residual hydrocarbons, solvents, and other
contaminants into the environment, possibly exposing construction workers, and
surrounding residents and visitors during construction.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-HAZ-2. If construction dewatering is necessary, a construction dewatering plan shall be
prepared and submitted with a dewatermg permit application. Reuse of groundwater as an on-
site dust palliative or for soil compaction is acceptable if requisite testing and comparison to
CAL-EPA screening thresholds indicate that the groundwater is suitable for reuse. If reuse is not
possible, contaminated water shall be safely removed to an approved site. Groundwater
removed during construction dewatering shall be treated to the extent required by the permit
agency prior to discharge and the appropriate permit shall be obtained from the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Dublin San Ramon Services District, or other agency with
jurisdiction,if the water is to be discharged into a storm or sanitary sewer system.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: Adherence to the supplemental mitigation measure will reduce this
impact to less than significant by requiring preparation and approval of necessary permits to
safely dewater the site and appropriate treatment of dewatered material to be reused. Permits
and approvals may be required from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control,
the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board,Alameda County Health
Department, State Water Resources Control Board discharge permits or potentially an air quality
permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Control Board if Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
are found.
Supplemental Impact HAZ-3: Demolition activities could release significant quantities
of lead based paint and asbestos containing material and other contaminants into the
environment, possibly exposing construction workers, and surrounding residents and
visitors during construction.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
26
SM-HAZ-3. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for the existing on-site building, testing
shall be performed by a qualified and licensed environmental professional to determine the
present of significant quantities of lead based paint and asbestos containing material. If detected,
such material shall be removed by a qualified contractor and disposed of in an approved disposal
facility. Necessary permits shall be obtained from appropriate regulatory agencies prior to
remediation.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: Adherence to the supplemental mitigation measure will reduce this
impact to a less than significant level by requiring the safe remediation of potentially hazardous
materials that could be located in the existing building.
2321191.3
27
EXHIBIT C
FINDINGS CONCERNING INFEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES AND
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES
CEQA provides that decisionmakers should not approve a project as proposed if there are
feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures that would substantially lessen the
significant impacts of the project (CEQA Section 21002). The SEIR identified feasible
mitigation measures that would reduce most of the potentially significant impacts to less than
significant, as further set forth in the Exhibit B findings above. However, the following impacts
in the SEIR remain significant after mitigation (i.e., significant and unavoidable) and no feasible
mitigation or project alternative is identified to reduce impact to less than significant:
(1) Supplemental Impact TR-2: The Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road intersection would
operate at LOS E without the proposed project during the PM peak hour under Short-Term
Cumulative conditions.
(2) Supplemental Impact TR-3: The Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive (410) intersection
would degrade from LOS D to LOS E with the addition of project trips during the PM peak hour
under Short-Term Cumulative conditions.
(3) Supplemental Impact TR-10: The project would cause the Dublin Boulevard segment
between Hacienda Drive and Hibernia Drive to degrade from LOS D to LOS E during the AM
peak hour under Existing conditions.
(4) Supplemental Impact TR-1 l: The project would cause the northbound Hacienda Drive
segment of Dublin Boulevard to Central Parkway to degrade from LOS D to LOS E. Project
traffic would also cause the volume to capacity ratio of the northbound Hacienda Drive segment
between I-580 westbound ramp to Hacienda Crossings to increase by 0.071.
(5) Supplemental Impact TR-12: The project would cause the volume to capacity ratio along the
eastbound Dublin Boulevard segment between DeMarcus Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway to
increase by 0.03 where it would operate at LOS E in the PM peak hour under Short-Term
Cumulative No Project scenario.
(6) Supplemental Impact TR-13: The project would cause the volume to capacity ratio along the
westbound Dublin Boulevard segment between Scarlett Drive and Dougherty Road to increase
by 0.027 where it would operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour under Short-Term Cumulative
No Project scenario.
(7) Supplemental Impact TR-14: The project would cause the volume to capacity ratio along the
northbound Hacienda Drive segment between I-580 westbound ramps and Hacienda Crossing to
increase by 0.045 where it would operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour and by 0.071 where it
would operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour under Short-Term Cumulative No Project scenario.
(8) Supplemental Impact TR-15: The project would cause the northbound Tassajara Road
segment between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway to degrade from LOS D to LOS E
during the PM peak hour under Short-Term Cumulative conditions. While the project would only
add 4 trips to this segment, this impact is considered to be significant.
(9) Supplemental Impact TR-16: The project would cause the volume to capacity ratios along
the westbound Dublin Boulevard segments between Iron Horse Parkway and Camp Parks where
it would operate at LOS E and between Camp Parks and Scarlett Drive where it would operate at
1
LOS F in the AM peak hour under Long-Term Cumulative No Project scenario to increase by
0.023.
(10) Supplemental Impact TR-17: The project would cause the volume to capacity ratio along
the northbound Hacienda Drive segment between I-580 westbound ramps and Hacienda
Crossing to increase by 0.02 during the PM peak hour where it would operate at LOS F under
Long-Term Cumulative No Project scenario.
(11) Supplemental Impact AQ-2 [Impact AQ-1 in Draft SEIR]: The project operations would
result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project
region is non-attainment under applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standards due to
emissions of NOX.
(12) Supplemental Impact AQ-2 (violation of air quality standards). The project would result in
a violation of regional air quality standard and would contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation.
(13) Supplemental Impact AQ-3: The project would conflict with the regional Clean Air Plan.
(14) Supplemental Impact AQ-5: The project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, both
directly and indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment and would
conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases.
The EDSP EIR also identified certain impacts of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP as significant and
unavoidable. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified four alternatives: No Project, Reduced
Planning Area, Reduced Land Use Intensities, and No Development. The City Council certified
the Eastern Dublin EIR on May 10, 1993, under Resolution No. 51-93. The City Council found
the No Project, Reduced Land Use Intensities, and No Development alternatives infeasible and
then approved a modification of the Reduced Planning Area Alternative rather than the GPA/SP
project as proposed (Resolution No. 53-93). This alternative was approved based on City
Council findings that this alternative land use plan would reduce land use impacts, would not
disrupt the Doolan Canyon community, would reduce growth-inducing impacts on agricultural
lands, and would reduce traffic, infrastructure, and noise impacts of the originally proposed
Eastern Dublin Project. Even under this alternative project, however, significant unavoidable
impacts would remain. Therefore, upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, the City
Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 53-93). Since
findings on those significant and unavoidable impacts have already been made by the City
Council as part of the certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, they are not required to be made a
part of the approval of the SEIR for the Project
The IKEA SEIR analyzed amendments to the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
to change the land use designation on the Project site from Campus Office to General
Commercial, which would have allowed an IKEA furniture retail store and other commercial
uses on the site. The IKEA SEIR evaluated the following impacts: Air Quality, Biological
Resources, and Transportation and Circulation. On March 16, 2004, the City certified the IKEA
SEIR and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the following impacts: excessive
levels of ozone precursors above regulatory thresholds on a project and cumulative basis,
excessive levels of carbon monoxide emissions above regulatory thresholds, and increase of
project traffic on local freeways on a cumulative basis (City Council Resolution No. 44-04).
Since findings on those significant and unavoidable impacts have already been made by the City
2
Council as part of the certification of the IKEA SEIR, they are not required to be made a part of
the approval of the SEIR for the Project.
Therefore, in compliance with CEQA, the following findings address whether there are any
feasible alternatives or any additional feasible mitigation measures available that would reduce
the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the SEIR for the Project to less than
significant.
FINDINGS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires that an EIR "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the
location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project..."
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)). "If a project alternative will substantially lessen the
significant environmental effects of a proposed project, the decisionmaker should not approve
the proposed project unless it determines that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or
other considerations,... make the project alternative infeasible." (CEQA Sections 21002 and
21081(a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3).) The City Council hereby makes these
findings with respect to alternatives.
The Project objectives are set forth in Section 3.5 of the Draft SEIR. Alternatives are identified
and analyzed in Section 5.3 of the Draft SEIR and include the required No Project/No
Development Alternative, a General Commercial Development Alternative, and a Campus
Office Development Alternative. Each of the alternatives was assessed for each resource topic
and compared to potential Project impacts. As further set forth below, the City Council has
considered the alternatives identified and analyzed in Section 5.3 of the Draft SEIR and finds
them to be infeasible for specific economic, social, or other considerations pursuant to CEQA
Sections 21002 and 21081(a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3). For CEQA
purposes, "feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a
reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, technological,
and legal factors. (CEQA Section 21061.1, CEQA Guidelines Section 15364.)
Alternative#1: No Project/No Development Alternative
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3) requires that a"No-Project" alternative be evaluated as
part of an EIR, proceeding under one of two scenarios: the project area remaining in its current
state or development of the project area under its current General Plan land use and zoning
designations. This alternative assumes that the site would remain vacant as it presently exists
and no development would occur. Existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land
use designations would remain as they currently exist.
By eliminating project construction and operation, the No Project Alternative would eliminate all
the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project on traffic and air quality. The No Project
Alternative would not create any new significant impacts.
The No Project Alternative avoids the project's significant and unavoidable impacts; however,
the City finds this alternative infeasible because it would be inconsistent with the Project's
3
objectives. The No Project Alternative is inconsistent with the most basic objectives of creating
a community that is compatible in scale and design with the surrounding properties and land
uses; development of a large vacant infill site in the City; construction of a mix of land uses that
result in a fiscally positive impact on the City's financial and service systems; creation of new
jobs and commercial services for the community; offering diverse types of residential units;
creation of a transit-oriented, walkable urban neighborhood by providing housing with direct
pedestrian and bicycle connections to retail and restaurant uses on-site, the Dublin/Pleasanton
BART Station, the proposed grocery-anchored shopping center to the north, and the Hacienda
Crossings retail center to the east, and the future Campus Office uses to the west. This
alternative does not take advantage of the site's proximity to the BART station and the
opportunities these facilities provide for alternative transportation choices and amenities. Under
this alternative, the Project will remain vacant and undeveloped at this time. The undeveloped
site is not compatible with the urban mixed-use character of development surrounding the site.
Finding: The City Council considered the No Project Alternative and declines to adopt it
because it is inconsistent with the Project objectives and is infeasible for the specific economic,
social, or other considerations described above, as supported by the administrative record for the
Project.
Alternative#2: General Commercial Development Alternative
Alternative 42—The General Commercial Development Alternative would include development
of the site under the existing Planned Development zoning. The existing PD zoning would
provide for 270,000 square feet of retail space and 35,000 square feet of restaurant space on the
Project site. This alternative would also include on-site parking, new driveways from adjoining
roads, landscaping, and other improvements. Implementation of this alternative would not
require amendments to the Dublin General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, or existing
site zoning. This alternative assumes that the development standards and design guidelines in
the Specific Plan would apply to future development.
With the elimination of residential units, the General Commercial Development Alternative
would eliminate the impacts caused by housing, such as Toxic Air Contaminant impacts on
residents and impacts from hazardous materials and noise due to a residential use on the site.
However, the increase of commercial development over that proposed by the Project would
result in an increase in certain impacts. The significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project
on transportation would still occur and, for some intersections, queues, and roadway segments,
may be greater due to the increase in PM Peak Trips of this alternative as compared to the
Project. The significant and unavoidable impacts on air quality of this alternative would also be
greater than those of the Project because this Alternative would result in 11,814 daily trips,
which is significantly greater than the 6,219 trips of the Project.
This alternative is consistent with the Project's objectives to the extent that it provides for infill
development on the vacant site, creation of new jobs and commercial services for the
community, and fiscal benefits to the City. However, the alternative would not promote the
objectives relating to mixed use, residential or transit-oriented uses.
4
Finding: The City Council considered the General Commercial Development Alternative and
declines to adopt it because it will not avoid or substantially lessen the Project's significant
unavoidable impacts and is infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other considerations
described above, as supported by the administrative record for the Project.
Alternative#3: Campus Office Development Alternative
Alternative 43 —Under this alternative, the site would be developed consistent with the existing
Campus Office General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation. This
Alternative considers construction of up 218,000 square feet of administrative, business, and
professional offices, consistent with nearby properties in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area.
Development of this alternative would also include on-site surface parking lots, landscaping,
signs, and similar improvements normally and customarily included in an office park
development. No amendments to the General Plan or the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would be
required to implement this Alternative.
With the elimination of residential units, the General Commercial Development Alternative
would eliminate the impacts caused by housing, such as Toxic Air Contaminant impacts on
residents and impacts from hazardous materials and noise due to a residential use on the site.
However, the significant unavoidable impacts on traffic and air quality would largely be the
same for this alternative as they are for the Project. The peak hour trip generation for this
alternative is slightly less than the Project but will likely result in the same significant and
unavoidable impacts. The daily trips from this Alternative (2,547 trips) will be less than the
Project (6,219 trips). This reduction in trips will result in reduced emissions of pollutants.
However, the reduction is unlikely to reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts of the
Project to less than significant. The impacts on water and sewer use by this alternative would be
less than the Project
This alternative is consistent with the Project's objectives to the extent that it provides for infill
development on the vacant site, creation of new jobs for the community, and potential fiscal
benefits to the City. However, the alternative would not promote the objectives of mixed use,
residential, or transit-oriented uses.
Finding: The City Council considered the General Commercial Development Alternative and
declines to adopt it because it will not avoid or substantially lessen the Project's significant
unavoidable impacts and is infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other considerations
described above, as supported by the administrative record for the Project.
FINDINGS REGARDING INFEASIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL MITIGATION
MEASURES
In the Draft SEIR and comments on the Draft SEIR, additional mitigation measures and/or
modifications to the measures recommended in the Draft SEIR are proposed to address the
significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project. The City carefully considered the proposed
mitigations, and finds the proposed mitigations infeasible, not necessary to avoid identified
5
significant impacts of the Project, or otherwise rejected the suggested mitigation, as further
described below.
In considering specific recommendations on mitigation measures, the City is guided by CEQA's
legal standard to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental effects to the extent
feasible. The mitigation measures recommended in the SEIR represent the professional
judgment and experience of the City's expert staff and environmental consultants. The City
therefore believes that these recommendations should not be modified unless necessary to
comply with CEQA legal standards. Thus, in considering commenters' suggested changes or
additions to the mitigation measures, the City, in determining whether to accept such
suggestions, either in whole or in part, has considered the following factors, among others: 1)
whether the suggestion relates to a significant and unavoidable environmental effect of the
Project, or instead relates to an effect that can already be mitigated to less than significant levels
by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR; 2)whether the suggested mitigation represents a
clear improvement, from an environmental standpoint, over the SEIR mitigation that a
commenter seeks to replace; 3) whether the suggested mitigation is sufficiently clear as to be
easily understood by those who will implement the mitigation as finally adopted; 4)whether the
suggested language might be too inflexible to allow for pragmatic implementation; 5) whether
the suggestions are "feasible" as defined under CEQA including being able to be accomplished
in a successful manner in a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic,
environmental, technical, legal, social or other factors; and 6) whether the proposed mitigation is
consistent with the Project objectives.
Additional or Alternative Mitigation Measures for Impact TR-2. Two alternate or additional
mitigation measures are: (1) implementation of additional vehicle lanes at Dublin Boulevard and
Dougherty Road; and (2) construction of a bicycle or pedestrian overcrossing at this intersection.
Finding: The construction of additional roadway lanes is infeasible because there is insufficient
right-of-way to construct the improvements. All properties abutting this intersection are fully
built out and purchase of additional right-of-way to accommodate additional lanes would
encroach into parking lots on three corners and a City public art installation on the southeast
corner of this intersection. The construction of a bicycle or pedestrian overcrossing is infeasible
due to the extreme length of raised walkways needed to span these very wide arterial roadways
and lack of sufficient right-of-way to provide for entrances and exits for such overcrossings. For
these reasons, the measures are infeasible and the City declines to impose them.
Additional or Alternative Mitigation Measure for Impact TR-3. An alternate or additional
mitigation measure is to: a) convert an eastbound right-turn lane to a through lane to provide two
left-turn lanes, four through lanes and one right-turn lane on the eastbound approach on Dublin
Boulevard; b)provide a corresponding receiving lane on the east leg with a 360-foot long taper
area; and c) optimize traffic signal split time.
Finding: The construction of the proposed improvements is infeasible because it would require
removal/modification of the curb extension at the southeast corner of the intersection and
relocation of the existing bike lane to accommodate the additional receiving lane, which would
adversely impact pedestrians by increasing the crossing distance and exposure to traffic and
6
bicyclists and adversely impact bicycle use of Dublin Boulevard. For these reasons, the
measures are infeasible and the City declines to impose them.
Additional or Alternative Mitigation Measures for Impact TR-10. The deterioration in level of
service on Dublin Boulevard is caused by long delays at the larger intersections along Dublin
Boulevard, such as Dougherty Road, Hacienda Drive, and Tassajara Road. Potential mitigation
measures could include optimization of the traffic signals in the network, reduction of the
number of turn and through lanes, or prohibition of pedestrian crossings to help improve the
travel speed along Dublin Boulevard.
Finding: The proposed mitigations are infeasible because of limited right-of-way availability
and such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts related to pedestrian mobility
and intersection level of service. For these reasons, the measures are infeasible and the City
declines to impose them.
Additional or Alternative Mitigation Measures for Impact TR-11. The deterioration in level of
service is primarily due to the long cycle length required to facilitate pedestrian crossings of
Hacienda Drive at the Dublin Boulevard intersection as well as the signal priority given to
Dublin Boulevard; hence holding back traffic on Hacienda Drive. Potential mitigation could
include optimization of the traffic signals in the network, reduction of the number of turn and
through lanes, or prohibition of pedestrian crossings to help improve the travel speed on
Hacienda Drive.
Finding: The proposed mitigations are infeasible because of limited right-of-way availability
and such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts related to pedestrian mobility
and intersection level of service. For these reasons, the measures are infeasible and the City
declines to impose them.
Additional or Alternative Mitigation Measures for Impact TR-12. Potential mitigation could
include optimization of the traffic signals in the network, reduction of the number of turn and
through lanes, or prohibition of pedestrian crossings to help improve the travel speed along
Dublin Boulevard.
Finding: The proposed mitigations are infeasible because of limited right-of-way availability
and such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts related to pedestrian mobility
and intersection level of service. For these reasons, the measures are infeasible and the City
declines to impose them.
Additional or Alternative Mitigation Measures for Impact TR-13. The deterioration in level of
service on Dublin Boulevard is caused by long delays at the larger intersections along Dublin
Boulevard, such as Dougherty Road, Hacienda Drive, and Tassajara Road. Potential mitigation
could include optimization of the traffic signals in the network, reduction of the number of turn
and through lanes, or prohibition of pedestrian crossings to help improve the travel speed along
Dublin Boulevard.
7
Finding: The proposed mitigations are infeasible because of limited right-of-way availability
and such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts related to pedestrian mobility
and intersection level of service. For these reasons, the measures are infeasible and the City
declines to impose them.
Additional or Alternative Mitigation Measures for Impact TR-14. The deterioration in level of
service is primarily due to the long cycle length required to facilitate pedestrian crossings of
Hacienda Drive at the Dublin Boulevard intersection as well as the signal priority given to
Dublin Boulevard; hence, holding back traffic on Hacienda Drive. Potential mitigation could
include optimization of the traffic signals in the network, reduction of the number of turn and
through lanes, or prohibition pedestrian crossings to help improve the travel speed on Hacienda
Drive.
Finding: The proposed mitigations are infeasible because of limited right-of-way availability
and such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts related to pedestrian mobility
and intersection level of service. For these reasons, the measures are infeasible and the City
declines to impose them.
Additional or Alternative Mitigation Measures for Impact TR-15. Optimization of the traffic
signals in the network, reduction of the number of turn and through lanes, or prohibition of
pedestrian crossings may help improve the travel speed on Tassajara Road.
Finding: The proposed mitigations are infeasible because of limited right-of-way availability
and such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts related to pedestrian mobility
and intersection level of service. For these reasons, the measures are infeasible and the City
declines to impose them.
Additional or Alternative Mitigation Measures for Impact TR-16. The deterioration in level of
service on Dublin Boulevard is caused by long delays at the larger intersections along Dublin
Boulevard. Potential mitigation could include optimization of the traffic signals in the network,
reduction of the number of turn and through lanes, or prohibition of pedestrian crossings to help
improve the travel speed along Dublin Boulevard.
Finding: The proposed mitigations are infeasible because of limited right-of-way availability
and such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts related to pedestrian mobility
and intersection level of service. For these reasons, the measures are infeasible and the City
declines to impose them.
Additional or Alternative Mitigation Measures for Impact TR-17. The deterioration in level of
service is primarily due to the long cycle length required to facilitate pedestrian crossings of
Hacienda Drive at the Dublin Boulevard intersection as well as the signal priority given to
Dublin Boulevard; hence, holding back traffic on Hacienda Drive. Potential mitigation could
include optimization of the traffic signals in the network, reduction of the number of turn and
through lanes, or prohibition of pedestrian crossings to help improve the travel speed on
Hacienda Drive.
8
Finding: The proposed mitigations are infeasible because of limited right-of-way availability
and such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts related to pedestrian mobility
and intersection level of service. For these reasons, the measures are infeasible and the City
declines to impose them.
2320900.2
9
EXHIBIT D
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of the City of Dublin
previously adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable
impacts of proposed development of the Project site as part of its certification of the Eastern
Dublin EIR (Resolution 53-93, May 10, 1993) and the IKEA SEIR (Resolution No. 44-04,
March 16, 2004). The City Council carefully considered each significant and unavoidable
impact in its decision to approve urbanization of Eastern Dublin through approval of the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project and its approval of the IKEA project
on the Project site. The City Council is currently considering The Green Mixed-Use Project
PLPA-2013-00013 ("Project"). The City prepared a Supplemental EIR for the Project ("SEIR"),
which identified supplemental Traffic and Air Quality impacts that were significant and
unavoidable.
Pursuant to a 2002 court decision, the City Council must adopt new overriding considerations for
the previously identified unavoidable impacts in the Eastern Dublin EIR and IKEA SEIR that
apply to the current Project.' The City Council must also adopt overriding considerations for
the supplemental impacts identified in the SEIR as significant and unavoidable. The significant
unavoidable impacts on air quality and traffic identified in the IKEA SEIR did not apply to the
Project because the SEIR performed a completely new air quality and traffic analysis for the
proposed Project. So, the air quality and traffic impacts in the SEIR supplant those identified in
the IKEA SEIR.
The City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the
Eastern Dublin EIR and the SEIR will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted
with the original Eastern Dublin approvals and by the mitigation measures in the SEIR and other
environmental protection measures adopted through the Project approvals, to be implemented
with the development of the Project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that the
implementation of the Project carries with it significant and unavoidable adverse environmental
effects, as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR that are applicable to the Project, and the SEIR.
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, and other considerations that support approval of the
project.
1. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the Eastern Dublin EIR. The
unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR for future
development of Eastern Dublin that apply to the Project include, but are not limited to, the
following:
"...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.4th 98(2002).
1
Land Use Impact 3.1/F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands; Visual
Impacts 3.8/13; and Alteration of Rural/Open Space Character.
Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.410. Increased solid waste production and impact
on solid waste facilities.
Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.41S. Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural
Resources and Sewer, Water, and Storm Drainage Impact 3.5 1F, H, U. Increases in Energy
Usage Through Increased Water Treatment, Disposal and Operation of Water Distribution
System.
Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Impact 3.61B. Earthquake Ground Shaking, Primary Effects.
Biological Resources Impact 3.71A. Direct habitat loss.
2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the Project SEIR. The following
unavoidable significant supplemental environmental impacts were identified in the Project SEIR.
(1) Supplemental Impact TR-2: The Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road intersection would
operate at LOS E without the proposed project during the PM peak hour under Short-Term
Cumulative conditions.
(2) Supplemental Impact TR-3: The Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive (410) intersection
would degrade from LOS D to LOS E with the addition of project trips during the PM peak hour
under Short-Term Cumulative conditions.
(3) Supplemental Impact TR-10: The project would cause the Dublin Boulevard segment
between Hacienda Drive and Hibernia Drive to degrade from LOS D to LOS E during the AM
peak hour under Existing conditions.
(4) Supplemental Impact TR-1 l: The project would cause the northbound Hacienda Drive
segment of Dublin Boulevard to Central Parkway to degrade from LOS D to LOS E. Project
traffic would also cause the volume to capacity ratio of the northbound Hacienda Drive segment
between I-580 westbound ramp to Hacienda Crossings to increase by 0.071.
(5) Supplemental Impact TR-12: The project would cause the volume to capacity ratio along the
eastbound Dublin Boulevard segment between DeMarcus Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway to
increase by 0.03 where it would operate at LOS E in the PM peak hour under Short-Term
Cumulative No Project scenario.
(6) Supplemental Impact TR-13: The project would cause the volume to capacity ratio along the
westbound Dublin Boulevard segment between Scarlett Drive and Dougherty Road to increase
by 0.027 where it would operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour under Short-Term Cumulative
No Project scenario.
(7) Supplemental Impact TR-14: The project would cause the volume to capacity ratio along the
northbound Hacienda Drive segment between I-580 westbound ramps and Hacienda Crossing to
increase by 0.045 where it would operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour and by 0.071 where it
would operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour under Short-Term Cumulative No Project scenario.
(8) Supplemental Impact TR-15: The project would cause the northbound Tassajara Road
segment between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway to degrade from LOS D to LOS E
2
during the PM peak hour under Short-Term Cumulative conditions. While the project would only
add 4 trips to this segment, this impact is considered to be significant.
(9) Supplemental Impact TR-16: The project would cause the volume to capacity ratios along
the westbound Dublin Boulevard segments between Iron Horse Parkway and Camp Parks where
it would operate at LOS E and between Camp Parks and Scarlett Drive where it would operate at
LOS F in the AM peak hour under Long-Term Cumulative No Project scenario to increase by
0.023.
(10) Supplemental Impact TR-17: The project would cause the volume to capacity ratio along
the northbound Hacienda Drive segment between I-580 westbound ramps and Hacienda
Crossing to increase by 0.02 during the PM peak hour where it would operate at LOS F under
Long-Term Cumulative No Project scenario.
(11) Supplemental Impact AQ-2 [Impact AQ-1 in Draft SEIR]: The project operations would
result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project
region is non-attainment under applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standards due to
emissions of NOX.
(12) Supplemental Impact AQ-2 (violation of air quality standards). The project would result in
a violation of regional air quality standard and would contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation.
(13) Supplemental Impact AQ-3: The project would conflict with the regional Clean Air Plan.
(14) Supplemental Impact AQ-5: The project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, both
directly and indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment and would
conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases.
3. Overriding Considerations.
The City Council has carefully considered each significant and unavoidable Project impact in
reaching its decision to approve the Project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes
that implementation of the Project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects, as
identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and SEIR. The City Council specifically finds that, to the
extent that the identified significant adverse impacts for the Project have not been reduced to
acceptable levels through feasible mitigation or alternatives, there are specific economic, social,
land use, and other considerations that support approval of the Project as set forth below. Any
one of these benefits is sufficient to justify approval of the Project. The substantial evidence
supporting the various benefits can be found in the record as a whole.
The Project will further the planned urbanization of Eastern Dublin, as established in the City
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan approvals. The Project will facilitate
development of an infill area, fully served by public utilities, and convenient to major arterials,
services, BART, and public transit. The Project will develop a large vacant infill property in an
area that is mostly surrounded by urban development. The Project improves an undeveloped site
with convenient freeway, street, bicycle, and pedestrian access and in the proximity of a large
daytime employment center with adjacent offices and access to public transit. The residential
development provides a diversity of types of units to meet different types of housing needs. The
Project will provide commercial uses to accommodate the demands of the community and
complement the adjacent commercial use. Development standards and design guidelines provide
3
measures for ensuring attractive, visually appealing development of the Project. The Project
overall promotes economic growth, creates diverse new employment opportunities, and expands
the City's tax base. Development of the Project site will also provide construction employment
opportunities. The Project will provide a community benefit payment and other amenities as set
forth in the Development Agreement. For all of the above reasons, the benefits of the Project
outweigh its significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.
2320904.2
4
The Green Mixed Use Project Supplemental EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (The Green SEIR MMRP)
Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Implementation and Monitoring
Monitoring Schedule Responsibility/
Reporting Date/
Monitor's Initials
TRA SM-TRA. The following measures shall be required to improve the level of service at Contribution for the full cost of City of Dublin Public
Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road (#8) intersection to within acceptable standard: the improvement shall be made Works Department
a) Add a 75-foot long southbound right turn lane with a 100-foot long taper area; prior to issuance of first Building and Planning Division.
b) Convert the southbound shared through-right lane to through lane; Permit.
c) Optimize traffic signal split time.
TR-2 SM-TR-2. The Eastern Dublin EIR MM 3.3/2.0 requires non-residential projects with Prior to issuance of the first City of Dublin Public
50 or more employees to participate in the Transportation Systems Management building permit. Works Department
(TSM) program. As an alternative mitigation measure, the Project shall prepare a and Planning Division.
transportation demand management(TDM) plan to encompass both commercial and
residential uses as part of the project. The project developer shall work with the City
to develop the key elements of the TDM plan, which shall be approved by the City
prior to the issuance of the first building permit. The TDM plan should include, but not
be limited to, the following elements:
a) Appoint Transportation Coordinator to oversee the TDM program developed
for the project including program development, information distribution and program
implementation.
b) Promote and distribute hard copy information quarterly to all employees and
residents regarding 511, Ridematch, Guaranteed Ride Home Program,
Wheels/LAVTA, Altamont Corridor Express (ACE), BART, shuttles to regional
transit, and any car share programs.
c) Distribute information quarterly regarding above by email blast to all
employees and residents.
d) Co-sponsor subarea transportation fair once a year with "The Village"
property to the north and/or other developments in the East Dublin area. Invite
Wheels, 511.org, and at least two other commute alternative service providers to
attend and distribute commute alternative information.
e) Provide bicycle parking facilities for 20 percent of commercial car spaces or a
number approved by the City beyond the City's bicycle rack requirement.
f) Provide secured bicycle parking (lockers or cages)for employees.
g) Join City Car Share as a "Biz Prime" member and pay for membership of a
minimum of five percent employees.
h) Implement a BART subsidy program that would provide BART tickets at no
cost or subsidized rate to all employees.
i) Implement a Commuter Tax Benefit Program or equivalent. Under Section
132(F)of federal tax code, an employer can offer its employees up to $245 per
month for qualified transit, vanpool or parking costs. Or, an employer may offer$20
The Green Mixed Use Project MMRP Page 1
City of Dublin September 2014
Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Implementation and Monitoring
Monitoring Schedule Responsibility/
Reporting Date/
Monitor's Initials
per month for bicycling costs. Full information is available at:
http://rideshare.51 l.org/rewards/tax—benefits.aspx
j) Provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools as part of off-street
parking requirements.
TR-4 SM-TR-4. The following measures would be required to improve the level of service TIF Fees to cover the fair share City of Dublin Public
at the Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road intersection to an acceptable standard: contribution of this improvement Works Department
a) Add an eastbound through lane to provide two left-turn lanes, three through shall be paid prior to the and Planning Division.
lanes and two right-turn lane on the eastbound approach on Dublin Boulevard; issuance of the first Building
and Permit.
b) Provide a corresponding receiving lane on the east leg that extends from
Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street.
TR-5 SM-TR-S.At the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive, there is a Fair-share contribution for the City of Dublin Public
significant impact from the Dublin Crossing project according to the Dublin Crossing alternative mitigation of Works Department
Specific Plan (DCSP)-DEIR. In the DSCP-DEIR, the recommended measure to removing the crosswalk on the and Planning Division.
mitigate the impacts at the intersection of Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard due to east leg of the Scarlett Drive
the high rate of pedestrians/bicyclists crossing at Dublin Boulevard is a grade and Dublin Boulevard
separated crossing. The grade separated crossing would eliminate the need for at- intersection shall be made prior
grade pedestrian actuations at the traffic signal, which would allow more green time to issuance of first Building
to be allocated to through traffic on Dublin Boulevard. Although the Dublin Crossings Permit.
project has not been environmentally cleared, nor has engineering or right of way
analysis been completed with regards to the feasibility of this improvement, the City is
aggressively pursuing this project to improve pedestrian and bicycle mobility along
the Iron Horse Trail. The City also plans to include a grade separated crossing at this
location in its update to the TIF program to secure project funding. Because the
separated bridge has not yet been environmentally cleared, and to ensure that the
impacts are adequately mitigated, the Applicant/Developer is required to provide a
fair-share contribution for the alternative mitigation of removing the crosswalk on the
east leg of the Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard intersection.
TR-6 SM-TR-6. The following measures would be required to improve the level of service Fair-share contribution for the City of Dublin Public
to within acceptable standard: improvement shall be made Works Department
a) Modify the traffic signal phasing to provide a protected/permitted overlap phase prior to issuance of first Building and Planning Division.
for the southbound right-turn movement and prohibit conflicting eastbound U- Permit.
turn movement; and
b) Optimize traffic signal split time.
TR-7 SM-TR-7. Optimization of the traffic signal phase time would reduce the 95 n Fair-share contribution for the City of Dublin Public
percentile queue length for the southbound left turn to 371 feet during the PM peak improvement shall be made Works Department
hour. While the queue length would still exceed the turn pocket storage, the project prior to issuance of first Building and Planning Division.
traffic would lengthen the queue by less than 25 feet. Permit.
TR-8 SM-TR-B. The traffic signal at this intersection shall be modified to provide additional Fair-share contribution for the City of Dublin Public
The Green Mixed Use Project MMRP Page 2
City of Dublin September 2014
Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Implementation and Monitoring
Monitoring Schedule Responsibility/
Reporting Date/
Monitor's Initials
green time for the westbound left-turn movement by reducing the green time for the improvement shall be made Works Department
eastbound through movement. This will reduce the queue length to 420 feet in the prior to issuance of first Building and Planning Division.
AM peak hour and 270 feet in the PM peak hour.While the queue lengths would still Permit.
exceed turn pocket capacity, the project traffic would lengthen the queue by less than
25 feet in the AM peak hour and would cause the queue to extend beyond the turn
pocket by less than 25 feet in the PM peak hour.
TR-9 SM-TR-9. The traffic signal phasing at this intersection shall be modified to provide Fair-share contribution for the City of Dublin Public
additional green time for the southbound left-turn movement. This will reduce the improvement shall be made Works Department
queue length by 12 feet to 845 feet and to within acceptable threshold. Also, because prior to issuance of first Building and Planning Division.
the impact is caused by cumulative land use growth in the region, the project Permit.
developer shall make a fair share contribution toward this improvement. The fair
share contribution shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first building permit.
TRA 8 SM-TR-18. Prior to the issuance of any permit for the project, the Applicant shall Prior to issuance of any permits City of Dublin Public
prepared final Site Improvement Plans for both onsite and offsite improvements that for the project site (including site Works Department
are consistent with the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map work, grading, building, and Planning Division.
plans, which have been determined to be consistent with applicable City guidelines, encroachment, etc.)
policies and standards, including but not limited to the City of Dublin General Plan
Community Design & Sustainability Element, Chapter 8.76 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance, and the Bikeway Master Plan, for review and approval by the City.
TRA9 SM-TR-19. Prior to the issuance of any permit for the project, the Applicant shall Prior to issuance of any permits City of Dublin Public
prepared final Site Improvement Plans for both onsite and offsite improvements that for the project site (including site Works Department
are consistent with the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map work, grading, building, and Planning Division.
plans, which have been determined to be consistent with applicable City guidelines, encroachment, etc.)
policies and standards, including but not limited to the City of Dublin General Plan
Community Design & Sustainability Element, Chapter 8.76 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance, and the Bikeway Master Plan, for review and approval by the City.
TR-20 SM-TR-20. Prior to issuance of any permit for the project, the Project shall submit Prior to issuance of any permits City of Dublin Public
design plans that are consistent with the City's Complete Street Policy and design for the project site (including site Works Department
standards for review and approval by the City. work, grading, building, and Planning Division.
encroachment, etc.)
TR-21 SM-TR-21. Prior to issuance of any permit for the project, the project developer shall Prior to issuance of any permits City of Dublin Public
submit design plans that are consistent with the City's Complete Street Policy for for the project site (including site Works Department
review and approval by the City. All designs shall conform to City standards. work, grading, building, and Planning Division.
encroachment, etc.)
TR-22 SM-TR-22. Before issuance of grading permits for the project, the project developer Prior to issuance of Grading City of Dublin Public
shall prepare a detailed Traffic Management Plan that will be subject to review and Permit. Works Department
approval by the City of Dublin, LAVTA, and local emergency service providers, and Planning Division.
including the City of Dublin Fire Prevention Bureau and the City of Dublin Police
Services Department. The plan shall ensure maintenance of acceptable operating
The Green Mixed Use Project MMRP Page 3
City of Dublin September 2014
Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Implementation and Monitoring
Monitoring Schedule Responsibility/
Reporting Date/
Monitor's Initials
conditions on local roadways and transit routes. At a minimum, the plan shall include:
a) The number of truck trips, time, and day of street closures
b) Time of day of arrival and departure of trucks
c) Limitations on the size and type of trucks; provision of a staging area with a
limitation on the number of trucks that can be waiting
d) Provision of a truck circulation pattern
e) Provision of a driveway access plan to maintain safe vehicular, pedestrian, and
bicycle movements (e.g., steel plates, minimum distances of open trenches, and
private vehicle pick up and drop off areas)
f) Safe and efficient access routes for emergency vehicles
g) Efficient and convenient transit routes
h) Manual traffic control when necessary
i) Proper advance warning and posted signage concerning street closures
j) Provisions for pedestrian safety and access.
Park-1 SM-Park-1. Prior to approval of the first Final Subdivision Map for the project, the Prior to approval of first Final City of Dublin Public
project developer(s)shall satisfy the requirement to provide parkland through the Map on the project site. Works Department,
payment of in-lieu fees to the City of Dublin prior to issuance of building permits. Parks and Community
Facilities Dept.,and
Planning Division.
1310-1 SM-1310-1. The applicant shall undertake the following prior to issuance of a grading Prior to issuance of Grading City of Dublin Public
plan for the site: Permit or any site disturbance. Works Department
a) A wetland delineation shall be completed for the site consistent with U.S. Army and Planning Division.
Corps of Engineers protocols.
b) If jurisdictional wetlands are found on the site and if avoidance of these
jurisdictional waters on the site is not feasible, suitable compensatory mitigation
shall be provided based on the concept of no net loss of wetland habitat values
or acreages. In such an eventuality, a wetland mitigation plan shall be developed
and implemented that includes creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of off-
site wetlands prior to project ground disturbance. Mitigation areas shall be
established in perpetuity through dedication of a conservation easement(or
similar mechanism)to an approved environmental organization and payment of
an endowment for the long-term management of the site. If wetlands are
determined to be jurisdictional under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the
mitigation plan will be subject to the review and approval of the Corps and
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). If the potential seasonal
wetlands are non-jurisdictional under Section 404, the mitigation plan will be
subject to the review and approval of the RWQCB.
1310-2 SM-1310-2. Focused surveys for special-status plants shall be conducted on the site Prior to issuance of Grading City of Dublin Public
consistent with the California Department of Fish &Wildlife's 2009 Protocols for Permit or any site disturbance. Works Department
The Green Mixed Use Project MMRP Page 4
City of Dublin September 2014
Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Implementation and Monitoring
Monitoring Schedule Responsibility/
Reporting Date/
Monitor's Initials
Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special-Status Populations and natural and Planning Division.
Communities. Plant surveys shall be conducted throughout the blooming period
throughout the blooming period of those special-status for which suitable habitat is
present. Two or three separate surveys may be required to cover the blooming
period of plants listed in Appendix Ai of the Supplemental Biological Analysis
(Appendix 8.7 of the DSEIR). If populations/stands of a special-status species are
identified during the surveys and impacts cannot be avoided, compensatory
mitigation shall be provided, such as the acquisition of off-site mitigation areas
presently supporting the species in question, purchase of credits in a mitigation bank
that is approved to sell credits for the affected species, or payment of in-lieu fees to a
public agency or conservation organization (e.g.. a local land trust)for the
preservation and management of existing populations. The location of mitigation sites
shall be determined in consultation with and subject to approval of US Fish and
Wildlife Service and/or California Department of Fish &Wildlife. In the case where
special-status plants are neither federal-or state-listed, the lead agency shall
approve the mitigation approach using the guidance provided by the Eastern
Alameda County Conservation Strategy in consultation with the City's consulting
biologist. Off-site compensatory shall be acquired at a minimum acreage ratio of 1:1
(acquired:impacted). For off-site mitigation options, measures shall be implemented
(including contingency measures) providing for the long-term protection of these
species.
1310-3 SM-1310-3. Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted for burrowing owls prior to Prior to issuance of Grading City of Dublin Public
grading or construction activities. These surveys should conform to the survey Permit or any site disturbance. Works Department
protocol established in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012b). and Planning Division.
The Conservation Strategy depicts the project site as being located in Conservation
Zone 2, which supports 11 percent of the Conservation Strategy's study area's
unprotected potential habitat for burrowing owl). Burrowing owls could nest or winter
in the site's approximate 13 acres of ruderal/disturbed non-native grassland habitat
and within the suitable grassland habitat adjacent to the site. The following measures
are consistent with the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California
Department of Fish &Wildlife standards.
a) No more than 14 days prior to any ground disturbing activities, a qualified
biologist shall conduct a take avoidance survey for burrowing owls. If no owls
are found during this first survey, a final survey will be conducted within 48
hours prior to ground disturbance to confirm that burrowing owls are still absent.
If ground disturbing activities are delayed or suspended for more than 14 days
after the initial take avoidance survey, the site shall be resurveyed (including the
final survey within 48 hours of disturbance). All surveys shall be conducted in
accordance with California Department of Fish &Wildlife guidelines.
The Green Mixed Use Project MMRP Page 5
City of Dublin September 2014
Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Implementation and Monitoring
Monitoring Schedule Responsibility/
Reporting Date/
Monitor's Initials
b) If burrowing owls are found on the site during the surveys, mitigation shall be
implemented in accordance with applicable California Department of Fish &
Wildlife standards. More specifically, if the surveys identify breeding or wintering
burrowing owls on or adjacent to the site, occupied burrows cannot be disturbed
and shall be provided with protective buffers. Where avoidance is not feasible
during the non-breeding season, a site-specific exclusion plan (i.e., a plan that
considers the type and extent of the proposed activity, the duration and timing of
the activity, the sensitivity and habituation of the owls, and the dissimilarity of the
proposed activity with background activities)shall be implemented to encourage
owls to move away from the work area prior to construction and to minimize the
potential to affect the reproductive success of the owls. The exclusion plan shall
be subject to California Fish &Wildlife approval and monitoring requirements.
Compensatory mitigation could also be required by California Fish &Wildlife as
part of the approval of an exclusion plan. Mitigation may include the permanent
protection of habitat at a nearby off-site location acceptable to the California
Department of Fish &Wildlife.
1310-4 SM-1310-4. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-4 (impacts to breeding birds). Prior to issuance of Grading City of Dublin Public
Vegetation removal and/or initial ground disturbance on the site shall occur during the Permit or any site disturbance. Works Department
non-breeding season from September 1 to January 31. If instead these actions will and Planning Division.
occur from February 1 to August 31, then a pre-construction breeding bird survey
shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to construction. Any common bird
active nests found shall be protected by a minimum 50-foot exclusion buffer. The
buffer size may vary depending on bird species, the location of the nest, and other
factors. If a breeding bird survey determines that a special-status species is located
on the site, a larger buffer would be required, such as a 100-foot buffer for minor
disturbances and a 250-foot buffer for major disturbances. In the case of special-
status species, the size of buffers and other measures would be implemented based
on any applicable CDFW guidance and standards.
1310-5 SM-1310-5. The marketing building shall be removed from the premises during Prior to issuance of Grading City of Dublin Public
September or October. Pre-construction surveys of the marketing building for bats Permit or any site disturbance. Works Department
shall occur no more than 30 days before its removal. If bats are found, a qualified and Planning Division.
biologist shall develop an appropriate relocation plan consistent with US Fish &
Wildlife, California Department of Fish &Wildlife and EACCS standards and policies.
NOISE- SM-NOISE-1. Reduce exterior and interior noise levels in noise sensitive areas of the Numbers 1-6: City of Dublin Building
1 project to meet City standards. To meet City noise standards, the following mitigation Prior to issuance of Building and Planning
shall be used: Permits for any residential Divisions.
1. Locate noise-sensitive outdoor use areas away from Interstate 580. Ensure that building.
all residents have access to outdoor use areas that achieve exterior noise criteria
(60 dBA CNEL for residential uses). Number 7: Prior to issuance of
The Green Mixed Use Project MMRP Page 6
City of Dublin September 2014
Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Implementation and Monitoring
Monitoring Schedule Responsibility/
Reporting Date/
Monitor's Initials
2. A suitable form of forced-air mechanical ventilation, as determined by the local the Certificate of Occupancy (or
building official, shall be provided for units throughout the site, so that windows finagling the permit and thereby
can be kept closed at the occupant's discretion to control interior noise and granting occupancy)for any
achieve the interior noise standards. commercial building.
3. For the first row of buildings facing Interstate 580, the buildings shall be designed
to have sealed windows and no balconies on elevations facing the freeway.
4. For residential uses, noise insulation features shall be designed to achieve the 45
dBA CNEL interior noise standard. Sound rated windows and doors shall be
provided to maintain interior noise levels at acceptable levels. Additional
treatments may include, but are not limited to, sound rated wall construction,
acoustical caulking, insulation, acoustical vents, etc. Large windows and doors
should be oriented away from the 1-580 where possible. Bedrooms should be
located away from 1-580.
5. The final specifications for noise insulation treatments shall be reviewed by a
qualified acoustical consultant during final design of the project to ensure that
exterior and interior noise levels on site achieve the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise
standard for residential uses and hourly average noise levels to 45 dBA Leq for
commercial uses. Results of the analysis, including the description of the
necessary interior and exterior noise control treatments, shall be submitted to the
City along with the building plans and shall approved by the City prior to issuance
of a building permit.
6. The final design and location of project mechanical equipment shall be reviewed
by a qualified acoustical consultant to confirm that operational noise levels would
not exceed 60 dBA CNEL at exterior project residential uses and would not
exceed 45 dBA CNEL inside these residences. If needed, the final design and
location of mechanical equipment shall be modified to conform with noise
parameters set forth in this analysis.
7. A truck delivery plan shall be submitted to the City for the commercial portion of
the project site, which would include the proposed hours of allowable deliveries
and the locations and routes of the delivery trucks on the project site. A qualified
acoustical consultant shall review the delivery plan to ensure that interior and
exterior noise levels on site achieve acceptable levels. The truck delivery plan
and acoustical consultant report shall be subject to approval by the City prior to
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any commercial building.
Air SM-AQ-1. The project applicant shall adhere to the following dust control measures, Prior to issuance of Grading City of Dublin Public
Quality which shall replace those included in EDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0: Permit or any site disturbance Works Department
a) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and ongoing. and Planning Division.
and unpaved access roads)shall be watered two times per day.
b) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be
The Green Mixed Use Project MMRP Page 7
City of Dublin September 2014
Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Implementation and Monitoring
Monitoring Schedule Responsibility/
Reporting Date/
Monitor's Initials
covered.
c) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using
wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power
sweeping is prohibited.
d) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
e) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon
as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.
f) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use
or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of
Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at
all access points.
g) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance
with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified
mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
h) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at
the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be
visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
AQ-1 SM-AQ-2. The project applicant shall reduce future residential and employee trips Prior to issuance of the first City of Dublin Public
through a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) program approved by the City and building permit. Works Department
including, but not limited to, the following measures: and Planning Division.
a) Appoint Transportation Coordinator to oversee the TDM program developed for
the project including program development, information distribution and program
implementation.
b) Promote and distribute hard copy information quarterly to all employees and
residents regarding 511, Ridematch, Guaranteed Ride Home Program,
Wheels/LAVTA, Altamont Corridor Express (ACE), BART, shuttles to regional
transit, and any car share programs.
c) Distribute information quarterly regarding above by email blast to all employees
and residents.
d) Co-sponsor subarea transportation fair once a year with "The Village" property to
the north and/or other developments in the East Dublin area. Invite Wheels,
511.org, and at least two other commute alternative service providers to attend
and distribute commute alternative information.
e) Provide bicycle parking facilities for 20 percent of commercial car spaces or a
The Green Mixed Use Project MMRP Page 8
City of Dublin September 2014
Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Implementation and Monitoring
Monitoring Schedule Responsibility/
Reporting Date/
Monitor's Initials
number approved by the City beyond the City's bicycle rack requirement.
f) Provide secured bicycle parking (lockers or cages)for employees.
g) Join City Car Share as a "Biz Prime" member and pay for membership of a
minimum of five percent employees.
h) Implement a BART subsidy program that would provide BART tickets at no cost
or subsidized rate to all employees.
i) Implement a Commuter Tax Benefit Program or equivalent. Under Section 132(F)
of federal tax code, an employer can offer its employees up to $245 per month
for qualified transit, vanpool or parking costs. Or, an employer may offer$20 per
month for bicycling costs. Full information is available at:
http://rideshare.51 l.org/rewards/tax—benefits.aspx
j) Provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools as part of off-street
parking requirements.
k) Provide shading in the parking lot, to the maximum extent possible, to reduce
evaporative ROG emissions.
AQ-4 SM-AQ-3. The project shall include the following measures to minimize long-term Prior to occupancy of any City of Dublin Building
toxic air contaminant (TAC)exposure for new residences: residential building on the and Planning
a. Ensure that no residential buildings would have a full year of occupancy prior to project site. Divisions.
1/1/2017.
b. Design buildings and site to limit exposure from sources of TAC and fine
particulate matter(PM2.5)emissions. The site layout shall locate windows and
air intakes as far as possible from 1-580 traffic lanes. Any modifications to the site
design shall incorporate buffers between residences and the freeway.
c. To the greatest degree possible, plant vegetation along the project site boundary
with 1-580 that includes trees and shrubs that provide a dense vegetative barrier.
d. Install air filtration in residential buildings at roof top level that have predicted
cancer risks in excess of 10 in one million or PM2.5 concentrations above 0.3
micrograms per cubic meter(lag/m3) as shown in Exhibit 4.7-4. The type of air
filtration device shall be as set forth in subsection e below.. To ensure adequate
health protection to sensitive receptors, a ventilation system shall meet the
following minimal design standards (Department of Public Health, City and
County of San Francisco, 2008):
• At least one air exchange(s) per hour of fresh outside filtered air;
• At least four air exchange(s) per hour recirculation; and
• At least 0.25 air exchange(s) per hour in unfiltered infiltration.
The Green Mixed Use Project MMRP Page 9
City of Dublin September 2014
Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Implementation and Monitoring
Monitoring Schedule Responsibility/
Reporting Date/
Monitor's Initials
e. The type of MERV- rated filtration required to be installed as part of the
ventilation system in the residential buildings shall be as follows:
1) MERV13 filtration shall be installed in a residential building partially or
completed located in an area where the cancer risk is 10 per one million or
greater but less than or equal to 22 per one million as shown in Exhibit 4.7-4
for unmitigated cancer risks.
2) MERV16 filtration shall be installed in a residential building partially or
completed located in an area where the cancer risk is greater than 22 per
one million and less than 50 per one million as shown in Exhibit 4.7-4 for
unmitigated cancer risks.
3) MERV16 filtration and sealed, inoperable windows and no balconies on
building elevations facing 1-580 freeway (MERV 16 Plus)shall be installed in
a residential building partially or completed located in an area where the
cancer risk is a greater than or equal to 50 per one million and less than 62.5
per one million as shown in Exhibit 4.7-4 for unmitigated cancer risks.
4) In areas where the cancer risk is 62.5 per one million or greater, residential
units shall not be built unless the developer includes specific mitigation
measures that are approved by a qualified air quality consultant and the City
that results in a reduction of the cancer risk to below 10 per one million.
f. As part of implementing this measure, an ongoing maintenance plan for the
buildings' heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) air filtration system
shall be required. Recognizing that emissions from air pollution sources are
decreasing, the maintenance period shall last as long as significant excess
cancer risk or annual PM2.5 exposures are predicted. Subsequent studies may be
conducted by an air quality expert approved by the City to identify the ongoing
need for the filtered ventilation systems as future information becomes available.
g. Ensure that the lease agreement and other property documents (1) require
cleaning, maintenance, and monitoring of the affected buildings for air flow leaks;
(2) include assurance that new owners and tenants are provided information on
the ventilation system; and (3) include provisions that fees associated with
owning or leasing a unit(s) in the building include funds for cleaning,
maintenance, monitoring, and replacements of the filters, as needed.
h. Consider phasing developments located closest to 1-580 to avoid significant
excess cancer risks and required installation of filtered ventilation systems
(described above). Note that new United States Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA) engines standards combined with California Air Resources
Board (CARB) rules and regulations will reduce on-road emissions of diesel
The Green Mixed Use Project MMRP Page 10
City of Dublin September 2014
Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Implementation and Monitoring
Monitoring Schedule Responsibility/
Reporting Date/
Monitor's Initials
particulate matter(DPM)and PM2.5 substantially, especially after 2014.
i. Require that, prior to building occupancy, an authorized air pollutant consultant
verify the installation of all necessary measures to reduce toxic air contaminant
JAC) exposure as set forth in this mitigation measure.
AQ-5 SM-AQ-4. The final design of the project shall include all requirements of the City Prior to issuance of Building City of Dublin Building
Climate Action Plan, including policies A.1.4 (Bicycle Parking Requirements), A.1.5 Permits. and Planning
(Streetscape Master Plan), A.1.8 (General Plan Community Design and Sustainability Divisions.
Element), A.1.9 (Work with LAVTA to Improve Transit),A.2.1 (Green Building
Ordinance), A.2.5 (LED Streetlight Specifications), A.3.1 (Construction and
Demolition Debris Ordinance), A.3.6 (Commercial Recycling). In addition, the project
proponent is encouraged to participate in subsidy programs such as Climate Action
Plan polices A.2.4 (Reduced Solar Installation Permit Fee) and A.3.5 (Commercial
Food Waste Collection Program), and non-subsidy programs such as policies A.3.7
(Multi-Family Recycling), A.3.8 (Curbside Recycling), and A.3.9 (Curbside Organics
Collection). Implementation of these mitigation measure would reduce GHG
emissions, but not below the significance thresholds. The project, as a whole, shall
adopt a water use reduction goal of at least 20 percent. A water use reduction plan
shall be developed by the project applicant that may include measures such as the
installation of low-flow water fixtures in showers and sinks, low-flush toilets, and the
use of water efficient landscaping. The project applicant shall implement a solid
waste recycling program through recycling and composting strategies, which results
in a project-wide solid waste diversion rate of at least 20 percent. Finally, the project
shall exceed 2008 Title 24 Building Standards (which CalEEMod is based on) by at
least 20 percent in terms of energy-efficiency. The project shall implement the
supplemental list of greenhouse gas reduction measures included as Attachment 6 to
the Final SEIR.
HAZA SM-HAZ-1. The Applicant/Developer shall notify ACDEH of the proposed project and Prior to issuance of Building City of Dublin Building
the intent to utilize the site for residential uses so ACDEH can re-evaluate the case. If Permits for any residential and Planning
directed by ACDEH, a Phase II site investigation or site health risk assessment shall building on the project site. Divisions.
be completed for portions of the site anticipated for residential development and
excavation prior to issuance of a grading and/or site improvement permit. The site
investigation shall be coordinated with the Alameda County Department of
Environmental Health. The investigation plan shall include a description of the work to
be performed, the laboratory analytical methods to be uses and requirements for
quality control. If additional remediation is necessary, a remediation plan shall be
prepared and approved by the ACDEH. Grading or excavation of any identified
contaminated residential area on the site shall not occur until ACDEH issues a
closure letter authorizing residential uses on the site. The Applicant/Developer shall
provide the City with documentation that the above actions have taken place. To
The Green Mixed Use Project MMRP Page 11
City of Dublin September 2014
Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Implementation and Monitoring
Monitoring Schedule Responsibility/
Reporting Date/
Monitor's Initials
protect the health and safety of construction workers, Health and Safety Plan that
meets the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements shall
be prepared and implemented if additional remediation is required.
HAZ-2 SM-HAZ-2. If construction dewatering is necessary, a construction dewatering plan Prior to issuance Grading City of Dublin Public
shall be prepared and submitted with a dewatering permit application. Reuse of Permit. Works Department
groundwater as an on-site dust palliative or for soil compaction is acceptable if and Planning
requisite testing and comparison to CAL-EPA screening thresholds indicate that the Divisions.
groundwater is suitable for reuse. If reuse is not possible, contaminated water shall
be safely removed to an approved site. Groundwater removed during construction
dewatering shall be treated to the extent required by the permit agency prior to
discharge and the appropriate permit shall be obtained from the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Dublin San Ramon Services District, or other
agency with jurisdiction, if the water is to be discharged into a storm or sanitary sewer
system.
HAZ-3 SM-HAZ-3. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for the existing on-site building, Prior to issuance of a Building City of Dublin Building
testing shall be performed by a qualified and licensed environmental professional to Permits for demolition. and Planning
determine the present of significant quantities of lead based paint and asbestos Divisions.
containing material. If detected, such material shall be removed by a qualified
contractor and disposed of in an approved disposal facility. Necessary permits shall
be obtained from appropriate regulatory agencies prior to remediation.
The Green Mixed Use Project MMRP Page 12
City of Dublin September 2014
Item 6. 1 Attachment 11 is available in the City
Clerk's Department.