Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 08-16 Dublin Crossing CEQA Amend RESOLUTION NO. 8-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A CEQA ADDENDUM FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RELATED TO THE DUBLIN CROSSING PROJECT PLPA-2016-00006 (APNS 986-0001-001-15 (PARTIAL), 986-0034-002-00, AND 986-0034-006-00) WHEREAS, the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan (DCSP) project area is approximately 189 acres in size and is generally bound by 5th Street to the north, Scarlett Drive to the west, Dublin Boulevard to the south, and Arnold Road to the east; and WHEREAS, on November 5, 2013, the City Council approved Resolutions 186-13 (EIR certification) and 187-13 (Specific Plan approval and General Plan amendments) as well as Ordinances 07-13 (Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map changes) and 08-13 (Development Agreement approval) that approved the Dublin Crossing project, which included the demolition of the existing buildings and other improvements on the site and construction of a residential mixed-use project with up to 1,995 single- and multi-family residential units; up to 200,000 square feet of retail, office and/or commercial uses; a 30 acre Community Park; a 5 acre Neighborhood Park, and a 12 acre school site to serve approximately 900 students; and WHEREAS, on June 2, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution 100-15 adopting a CEQA Addendum for Amendments to the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement related to the Dublin Crossing Project; and WHEREAS, the Project Applicant has requested a second amendment to the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement and has also proposed minor changes to the approved project which result in the need to make determinations on the proposed revisions' consistency with the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and with the Conditions of Approval for Vesting Tentative Map 8150; 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 an Initial Study which describes the proposed Project, including the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Substantial Conformance Determination, Finding of Compliance with the Conditions of Approval for VTM 8150, and Amendment No. 2 to the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement. The Initial Study, dated January 5, 2016, examines the project and its relation to the original analysis in the Dublin Crossing EIR, incorporated herein by reference and attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. The document was prepared to determine if additional environmental review was required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162. Based on the Initial Study, the City determined that the potentially significant effects of the project were adequately addressed in the Dublin Crossing EIR (SCH 2012062009); and Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for the Proposed Project, as no substantial changes have been proposed to the project or the conditions under which the project will be carried out that require major revisions of the Dublin Crossing EIR. No new significant environmental impacts have been identified and no substantial increases in the severity of previously identified impacts were discovered. The project remains subject to all previously adopted mitigation measures, as applicable; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum, dated January 5, 2016, incorporated herein by reference and attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A-1, was prepared, which describes the Proposed Project and its relation to the analysis in the Dublin Crossing EIR; and WHEREAS, Section 13.3 of the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement provides that insubstantial amendments to the Agreement may be executed by the parties to the Agreement and shall not require notice or public hearing before either the Planning Commission or the City Council; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated January 19, 2016 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Proposed Project, including Amendment No. 2 to the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement and the associated CEQA Addendum, for the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Dublin Crossing EIR and CEQA Addendum, all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 and the California Court of Appeals decision Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal. App. 4th 98, 125, approval of the Project must be supported by a new Statement of Overriding Considerations. 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 has reviewed and considered the Addendum and Initial Study (Exhibit A) and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit B) prior to taking action on the project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby adopt the CEQA Addendum, including the related Initial Study, attached as Exhibit A, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 for the Amendments to the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan related to the Dublin Crossing Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit B. Page 2 of 3 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 19th day of January, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmember Biddle, Gupta, Hart, and Wehrenberg NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Haubert ABSTAIN: None WX■ Mayor Pro Tem ATTE ip : Alf .PuTy City Clerk I 0 Reso No. 8-16,Adopted 1-19-16, Item 4.14 Page 3 of 3 Initial Study and CEQA Addendum to the Exhibit A Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report for the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Substantial Conformance Determination, Finding of Compliance with the Conditions of Approval for VTM 8150,and Amendment No.2 to the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement(2016)Project City of Dublin January 5,2016 ADDENDUM PROJECT DESCRIPTION: On October 20, 2015, the City Council received a staff report outlining proposed revisions to the Dublin Crossing project and related community benefit contributions being proposed by the Developer. Modifications to the project included the decision to not culvert the existing open channel along Arnold Road and the elimination of the requirement to underground the overhead power lines along Scarlett Drive across Dublin Blvd. Formalizing these two changes to the project requires approval by the Community Development Director and City Engineer(as allowed by Condition of Approval 10 to Planning Commission Resolution 14-14, which approved the Vesting Tentative Map for the project) and as allowed by Section 7.1.6 of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan. The Community Development Director and City Engineer have agreed that the project, as proposed to be modified, remains in compliance with both the Conditions of Approval for the Vesting Tentative Map and in substantial conformance with the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan. The findings for both decisions are detailed in the numbered sections 1 and 2 below. In addition to the modifications to the project as detailed,the Project Applicant is also proposing changes to the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement, which is described in further detail in numbered section 3 below. The Development Agreement amendment requires review and approval by the City Council. 1. Compliance with the Conditions of Approval of VTM 8150(PC Resolution 14-14) Arnold Road modification(Condition of Approval 71) The approved Dublin Crossing Specific Plan identifies the conversion of Arnold Road from its current two- lane condition to a four lane roadway. This expansion required undergrounding the open channel on the west side of the street. The Project Developer, Dublin Crossing LLC, has indicated that the resource agencies are not looking favorably upon the issuance of a permit to underground the channel and would prefer that the Developer leave the channel open and in place. Relocation of the open channel to accommodate the expansion of Arnold Road, should it be approved by the resource agencies, would present a significant cost and time burden to the overall project timing and as such, the Developer has requested that the City allow for an alternative for the improvements along this side of the development. Staff has reviewed this request and, while it would be desirable to have the channel undergrounded to create additional roadway capacity, Staff believes there is a benefit to the option of leaving the channel in place as it creates a natural buffer between the development and the street. Disturbing the site and the wildlife therein would also have an impact on the area,and leaving the channel intact would therefore be a better environmental option. Additionally, the channel itself will be naturalized and improved to become an attractive feature within the area,mitigating the visual impact of the change. Overhead Utility Lines(Condition of Approval 69) The Developer has met with PG&E to discuss the undergrounding of the utility lines on the project as required by conditions of approval. PG&E identified that in addition to distribution lines along Scarlett Drive, the utility poles also contain high-power transmission lines. PG&E has indicated that it is nearly impossible to place these large transmission lines underground and would likely not responded favorably to the request. Neither the City nor the Developer have the authority to force PG&E to allow the undergrounding to proceed. Thus, the Developer has requested that the City refrain from enforcing Condition of Approval 69, which requires the undergrounding. Due to the inherent challenge of requiring the participation of another agency to ensure the compliance with a condition of approval, Staff is acknowledges that Condition of Approval 69 cannot be complied with as written. The Developer will instead work with PG&E to remove the existing utility pole that is in the future Scarlett Drive extension right of way, underground the distribution lines, and realign the remaining poles on either side of Dublin Blvd.to minimize the aesthetic impacts of the utility lines as they cross the street. These two modifications were reviewed with the City Council in a staff report and accompanying presentation on October 20, 2015. The City Council directed Staff to proceed with allowing these changes to the project. Upon that request,the City Engineer and Community Development Director authorized the proposed changes to the project as a minor modification to the respective conditions and found the project to be in compliance with the conditions (although in a manner that is different than originally intended). 2. Determining Substantial Conformance with the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Section 7.1.6 of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan allows the Community Development Director discretion to determine that a land use district boundary adjustment, or other similar variation, is in conformance with the Specific Plan if several items(detailed in Section 7.1.6)can be demonstrated. In allowing this modification,the Community Development Director acknowledges that certain sections of the Specific Plan will no longer accurately describe the conditions to be created by the project, including text on Specific Plan Page 4-28 that describes the future conditions of Arnold Road and Specific Plan Figure 4-20, which will no longer be an accurate depiction of the future street edge conditions. A more accurate description of the Arnold Road future conditions is as follows: The west side of Arnold Road has a drainage channel that is approximately 30 feet wide. This channel will remain open and will be enhanced with native vegetation. Central Parkway north to Horizon Parkway, the channel will be immediately adjacent to the street and there will be a 10 foot wide multi use trail on the west side of the channel adjacent to the neighborhood and a community wall or fence behind the trail. If there are commercial uses that end up developing along Arnold Road north of Central Parkway, the interface with the street and drainage channel may be re-examined and entrance drives to the commercial area could be considered Despite the change in the channel area, the interface between the project area and Arnold Road will be very similar to what was originally planned,with a landscaped area along the street edge. Attachment 1 to this memorandum describes and illustrates the future condition. The exhibit demonstrates that impacts to aesthetics can be mitigated by creating an attractive landscape buffer along the neighborhood edge, the open channel,and the street. However, a material change created by leaving the channel open and not building a culvert is the inability to accommodate the expansion of Arnold Road with a wide, landscaped median, Class II bicycle lanes, a landscaped parkway strip, and an 8-foot sidewalk along the street. Vesting Tentative Map 8150 illustrates these improvements. The Final Subdivision Improvement Plans will reflect an open channel and a narrower right-of-way for Arnold Road, as shown in the Proposed Arnold Road Improvements (Exhibit A-1 and A-2). A traffic/circulation analysis was prepared by a qualified consultant and reviewed by the City's Transportation and Operations Manager. The analysis concluded that the circulation along Arnold Road for all modes of transportation would be sufficiently accommodated with the reduced right of way width (Exhibit A-3). 3. Dublin Crossing Development Agreement Amendment No.i The Project Developer is proposing Amendment No. 2 to the Development Agreement between the City and Dublin Crossing Venture LLC related to the Dublin Crossing Project. The specific Development Agreement items include: • Modifying the total amount and timing of the Community Benefit Payment contributions; • Requiring that the Project Developer help the City with pursuing a small expansion of the Community Park footprint along Scarlett Drive; • Requiring that the Project Developer install hydroturf on four acres of the future school/park site within the project area; • Project Developer agreement to purchase a wetland mitigation easement over the City-owned parcel adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail and south of Dublin Boulevard to preserve the property as open space;and • Project Developer agreement to accelerate the payment of the Civic Center Component of Public Facilities Fee due for the entirety of the project. The modifications to the Development Agreement consist primarily of adjusting the timing and payment of fees and modifying the responsible party for the completion of certain improvements. The physical improvements to be completed were previously contemplated, but the amendments to the Development Agreement modify the timing of the construction of the improvements. The proposed changes to the project and the associated Development Agreement amendments will result in the construction of the Dublin Crossing project without increasing the current maximum number of housing units (up to 1,995) allowed or the maximum amount of commercial square footage allowed to be built (up to 200,00o square feet). Additionally, a slightly larger amount of parkland will be provided, land that is currently open space (the City-owned parcel along the Iron Horse Trail) will remain so, the Arnold Road channel will remain open and aesthetically improved, and the vehicular circulation through and around the site will remain sufficient to serve the community's needs. PRIOR CEQA ANALYSIS: On November 5, 2013 via City Council Resolution 186-13, the City Council certified a Final Environmental Impact Report(SCH 2012062009)for the Dublin Crossing Project. The Final EIR analyzed the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, which was a plan for the orderly development of approximately 189 acres, including 8.7 acres owned by Alameda County Surplus Property Authority, an 8.9 acre parcel owned by NASA, and a 172-acre portion of the 2,485-acre Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks). The Specific Plan addressed the future development of the project area, which includes demolition of the existing buildings and other improvements on the site and construction of a residential mixed-use project with up to 1,995 single- and multi-family residential units; up to 200,000 square feet of retail, office and/or commercial uses; a 3o acre Community Park; a 5 acre Neighborhood Park,and a 12 acre elementary school site to serve approximately goo students. On June 2, 2015 via City Council Resolution 100-15, the City Council adopted a CEQA Addendum for Amendments to the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Development Agreement related to the Dublin Crossing Project (2015). The CEQA Addendum analyzed land use amendments to the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and modifications to the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement that helped facilitate the no-cost acquisition of a 12-acre school site that can be used by both the City and the School District. CURRENT CEOA ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION THAT AN ADDENDUM IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS PROJECT: In order to determine if there were any significant environmental impacts that were present with the proposed project that were not already addressed (and mitigated if necessary)in the Dublin Crossing FEIR, an Initial Study was completed. The Initial Study, dated January 5, 2016 and incorporated herein by reference, determined that the potentially significant effects of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Substantial Conformance Determination, Finding of Compliance with the Conditions of Approval for VTM 8150, and Amendment No. 2 to the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement (2016) Project were adequately addressed in the Dublin Crossing FEIR, and that no substantial changes are proposed with the current Project or the conditions under which the Project will be undertaken that require revisions of the previous environmental documents. Based on the Initial Study, this Addendum has been prepared, which notes the difference between the Proposed Project (2016) and the previous project approvals (2013), which CEQA impacts were addressed in the certified Dublin Crossing FEIR. The Proposed Project (2016) does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area, substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development, or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed and the Dublin Crossing FEIR certified. The circulation system remains the same, the number of allowable residential units has not increased, the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased, and the number of students expected to be served by the school has not changed. NO SUBSEQUENT REVIEW IS REQUIRED PER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15162: Pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, no subsequent environmental analysis shall be prepared for the Proposed Project (2016), as no substantial changes have been proposed with the Project or the conditions under which the Project will be undertaken which require revisions to the previous environmental documents. No new significant environmental impacts have been identified and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts has been discovered. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, with minor technical amendments and clarifications as outlined in this Addendum, the Dublin Crossing FEIR will continue to adequately address the significant environmental impacts of the Proposed Project(2016). CONCLUSION: The City prepared an Initial Study in connection with the Proposed Project (2016). Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared an Addendum to the Dublin Crossing FEIR. As provided in Section 15164, the Addendum need not be circulated for public review, but shall be considered with the previous environmental documents before making a decision on the proposed project. The Initial Study is included below and the previous environmental documents are available for review in the Community Development Department at the City of Dublin, loo Civic Plaza, Dublin, California. INITIAL STUDY This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines. It assesses the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project described below and whether those impacts are adequately addressed in prior environmental reviews for the site.The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. 1. Project Title: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Substantial Conformance Determination, Finding of Compliance with the Conditions of Approval for VTM 8150,and Amendment No. 2 to the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement(2016) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 3.Contact Person and Phone Number: Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner Community Development Department (925)833-6610 4. Project Location: Approximately 189 acres bound generally by 5th Street to the north, Scarlett Drive to the west, Dublin Boulevard to the south,and Arnold Road to the east. APNs 986-0001-001- 15(partial), 986-0034-002-0o,and 986-0034-006-00 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Joe Guerra Dublin Crossing Venture LLC/Brookfield Residential 500 La Gonda Way,Suite 100 Danville, CA 94526 6.General/Specific Plan Designation: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan 7.Zoning: Dublin Crossing Zoning District 8.Surrounding land uses and setting: LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY North Ag Public Lands Camp Parks South PD High Density Residential and Campus Office Residential Apartments East PD Campus Office Business Park PD and Medium-High Density Residential and Combination of uses including West Light Retail/Office, apartments,service commercial,and Industrial Business Park/Industrial and Outdoor retail uses Storage 9.Other Public Agencies: None 10 Other public agencies who may rely on this CEQA document: Grading and Building permits(City of Dublin) Sewer and water connections(DSRSD) Encroachment permits(City of Dublin) Notice of Intent(State Water Resources Control Board) Project Description Background The Dublin Crossing project site includes approximately 189 acres of land that are divided between the following property owners: 139 acres owned by the United States Army, 8.7 acres owned by the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority, and approximately 41.9 acres owned by Dublin Crossing Venture LLC. The project area is shown below. Figure 1: Vicinity Map L Oi ,> • 44 1 III ' .__ ,. tr.. s ell - After several years of planning,analysis, and negotiations, on November 5, 2013,the City Council approved the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan (DCSP) and associated implementation actions. The Specific Plan outlined the future development of the project area, which includes demolition of the existing buildings and other improvements on the site and construction of a residential mixed-use project with up to 1,995 single-and multi-family residential units; up to 200,000 square feet of retail, office and/or commercial uses; a 30 acre Community Park; a 5 acre Neighborhood Park, and a 12 acre school site to serve approximately 900 students. In addition to the DCSP, amendments were approved to the General Plan, the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning Map to implement the Specific Plan. The project approvals also included the certification of the Dublin Crossing Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The approval actions by the City Council were formalized in Resolutions 186-13(EIR certification)and 187-13(Specific Plan approval and General Plan amendments) as well as Ordinances 07-13 (Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map changes) and 08-13 (Development Agreement approval). In 2014, City Staff approached the Project Developer to discuss options for the City to obtain the 12-acre school site in an effort to assist the school district in their efforts to construct a public school on the project site to serve the community. After much discussion and negotiation, agreement was reached on terms that would allow the transfer of the future school site to the City at no cost in exchange for modifications to the entitlements for the Dublin Crossing project. To effectuate these changes, on June 2, 2015 via City Council Resolution 100-15, the City Council adopted amendments to the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Development Agreement related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015)and an associated CEQA Addendum. Proposed Project The Proposed Project is comprised of the following components: 1. Determination of Compliance with the Conditions of Approval of VTM 815o(PC Resolution 14-14) Arnold Road modification (Condition of Approval 71) The approved Dublin Crossing Specific Plan identifies the conversion of Arnold Road from its current two- lane condition to a four lane roadway. This expansion required undergrounding the open channel on the west side of the street. The Project Developer, Dublin Crossing LLC, has indicated that the resource agencies are not looking favorably upon the issuance of a permit to underground the channel and would prefer that the Developer leave the channel open and in place. Relocation of the open channel to accommodate the expansion of Arnold Road, should it be approved by the resource agencies, would present a significant cost and time burden to the overall project timing and as such, the Developer has requested that the City allow for an alternative for the improvements along this side of the development. Staff has reviewed this request and, while it would be desirable to have the channel undergrounded to create additional roadway capacity, Staff believes there is a benefit to the option of leaving the channel in place as it creates a natural buffer between the development and the street. Disturbing the site and the wildlife therein would also have an impact on the area,and leaving the channel intact would therefore be a better environmental option. Additionally, the channel itself will be naturalized and improved to become an attractive feature within the area,mitigating the visual impact of the change. Overhead Utility Lines(Condition of Approval 69) The Developer has met with PG&E to discuss the undergrounding of the utility lines on the project as required by conditions of approval. PG&E identified that in addition to distribution lines along Scarlett Drive, the utility poles also contain high-power transmission lines. PG&E has indicated that it is nearly impossible to place these large transmission lines underground and would likely not responded favorably to the request. Neither the City nor the Developer have the authority to force PG&E to allow the undergrounding to proceed. Thus, the Developer has requested that the City refrain from enforcing Condition of Approval 69, which requires the undergrounding. Due to the inherent challenge of requiring the participation of another agency to ensure the compliance with a condition of approval, Staff is acknowledges that Condition of Approval 69 cannot be complied with as written. The Developer will instead work with PG&E to remove the existing utility pole that is in the future Scarlett Drive extension right of way, underground the distribution lines, and realign the remaining poles on either side of Dublin Blvd.to minimize the aesthetic impacts of the utility lines as they cross the street. These two modifications were reviewed with the City Council in a staff report and accompanying presentation on October zo, 2015. The City Council directed Staff to proceed with allowing these changes to the project. Upon that request,the City Engineer and Community Development Director authorized the proposed changes to the project as a minor modification to the respective conditions and found the project to be in compliance with the conditions (although in a manner that is different than originally intended). 2. Determination of Substantial Conformance with the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Section 7.1.6 of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan allows the Community Development Director discretion to determine that a land use district boundary adjustment, or other similar variation, is in conformance with the Specific Plan if several items(detailed in Section 7.1.6)can be demonstrated. In allowing this modification,the Community Development Director acknowledges that certain sections of the Specific Plan will no longer accurately describe the conditions to be created by the project, including text on Specific Plan Page 4-28 that describes the future conditions of Arnold Road and Specific Plan Figure 4-20, which will no longer be an accurate depiction of the future street edge conditions. A more accurate description of the Arnold Road future conditions is as follows: The west side of Arnold Road has a drainage channel that is approximately 30 feet wide. This channel will remain open and will be enhanced with native vegetation. Central Parkway north to Horizon Parkway, the channel will be immediately adjacent to the street and there will be a 10 foot wide multi use trail on the west side of the channel adjacent to the neighborhood and a community wall or fence behind the trail. If there are commercial uses that end up developing along Arnold Road north of Central Parkway, the interface with the street and drainage channel may be re-examined and entrance drives to the commercial area could be considered. Despite the change in the channel area, the interface between the project area and Arnold Road will be very similar to what was originally planned, with a landscaped area along the street edge. Attachment 1 to this memorandum describes and illustrates the future condition. The exhibit demonstrates that impacts to aesthetics can be mitigated by creating an attractive landscape buffer along the neighborhood edge, the open channel,and the street. However, a material change created by leaving the channel open and not building a culvert is the inability to accommodate the expansion of Arnold Road with a wide, landscaped median, Class II bicycle lanes, a landscaped parkway strip, and an 8-foot sidewalk along the street. Vesting Tentative Map 815o illustrates these improvements. The Final Subdivision Improvement Plans will reflect an open channel and a narrower right-of-way for Arnold Road, as shown in the Proposed Arnold Road Improvements (Attachments 1 and 2). A traffic/circulation analysis was prepared by a qualified consultant and reviewed by the City's Transportation and Operations Manager. The analysis concluded that the circulation along Arnold Road for all modes of transportation would be sufficiently accommodated with the reduced right of way width(Attachment 3). 3. Dublin Crossing Development Agreement Amendment No.2 The Project Developer is proposing Amendment No. 2 to the Development Agreement between the City and Dublin Crossing Venture LLC related to the Dublin Crossing Project. The specific Development Agreement items include: • Modifying the total amount and timing of the Community Benefit Payment contributions; • Requiring that the Project Developer help the City with pursuing a small expansion of the Community Park footprint along Scarlett Drive; • Requiring that the Project Developer install hydroturf on four acres of the future school/park site within the project area; • Project Developer agreement to purchase a wetland mitigation easement over the City-owned parcel adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail and south of Dublin Boulevard to preserve the property as open space; and • Project Developer agreement to accelerate the payment of the Civic Center Component of Public Facilities Fee due for the entirety of the project. The modifications to the Development Agreement consist primarily of adjusting the timing and payment of fees and modifying the responsible party for the completion of certain improvements. The physical improvements to be completed were previously contemplated, but the amendments to the Development Agreement modify the timing of the construction of the improvements. The proposed changes to the project and the associated Development Agreement amendments will result in the construction of the Dublin Crossing project without increasing the current maximum number of housing units(up to 1,995) allowed or the maximum amount of commercial square footage allowed to be built(up to 200,000 square feet). Additionally, a slightly larger amount of parkland will be provided, land that is currently open space (the City-owned parcel along the Iron Horse Trail) will remain so, the Arnold Road channel will remain open and aesthetically improved, and the vehicular circulation through and around the site will remain sufficient to serve the community's needs. Environmental Checklist Environmental Factors Potentially Affected by the Project The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards& Hazardous Hydrology/Water Land Use/Planning Materials Quality Mineral Resources Noise Population/ Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/ Traffic Utilities/Service Mandatory Findings of Significance Systems Instructions A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact"answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved(e.g.,the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards(e.g.,the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct,and construction as well as operational impacts. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation,or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that any effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: applies where incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact"to a "Less Than Significant Impact."The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Earlier Analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, Program El R, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15o63(c)(3)(D). In this case,the checklist entry will be "No New Impact"and a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: 0 a. Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. The conclusion of"No New Impact"in this Initial Study means that there are no new or substantially more severe significant environment impacts that those identified in the Dublin Crossing EIR and no other standards for subsequent or supplemental environmental review under CEQA are met. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant No New Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including but not limited to trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings X within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality X of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,which would X adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion(Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and EIR,Exhibits A-1 and A-2 to this Initial Study) The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEI R. The change to the Right of Way(ROW)of Arnold Road does not degrade the existing visual character and,with the changes proposed as part of the channel restoration,will actually be an aesthetic enhancement to the existing channel condition. The change to the power lines on Scarlett will also be an aesthetic improvement over the existing conditions. Lastly,the potential sale of open space for mitigation purposes will not have any new aesthetic impacts that were not already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing El R. Overall,the Dublin Crossing Project remains intact with minor modifications resulting from the Proposed Project. The functionality of the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased,the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,and the number of students expected to be served by the future school site has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts on aesthetics/visual resources beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources,including timberland,are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land,including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project;and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring X Program of the California Resources Agency,to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a X Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for,or cause rezoning of forest land(as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland(as defined by Public Resources Code section X 4526)or timberland zoned Timberland Production(as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to X Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant No New issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): non-forest uses? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment,which due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of X Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Discussion(Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and EIR) The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEIR. There continue to be no forestry or agricultural resources on the project site. Overall,the Dublin Crossing Project remains intact with minor modifications resulting from the Proposed Project. The functionality of the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased, the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,and the number of students expected to be served by the future school site has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts on agricultural or forestry resources beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result. 3. AIR QUAUTY. Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or X projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air X quality standard(including releasing emissions,which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people? Discussion(Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and EIR) The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEIR. Overall,the Dublin Crossing Project remains intact with minor modifications resulting from the Proposed Project. The functionality of the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased,the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased, and the number of students expected to be served by the future school site has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts on air quality beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through X Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant No New Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts Issues(and Supporting information Sources): habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or X regional plans,policies,regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.) X through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with X established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or X ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or X other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion(Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and E1R,Exhibit A-2 to this Initial Study) The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEI R. The change to the Right of Way(ROW)of Arnold Road and leaving the channel open does not have a substantial adverse impact on the biological resources and,with the changes proposed as part of the channel restoration,will actually be an enhancement to the existing channel condition and habitat value. The potential sale of open space for mitigation purposes will not have impacts to biological resources that were not already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing El R. Lastly,the location and configuration of the power lines along Scarlett Drive does not have any impacts related to biological resources. Overall,the Dublin Crossing Project remains Intact with minor modifications resulting from the Proposed Project. The location of development remains the same, functionality of the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased, the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,and the number of students expected to be served by the future school site has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts on biological resources beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing El R,and therefore no new impacts would result. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines section X 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X archaeological resource pursuant to section 15064.5? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant No New Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside X of formal cemeteries? Discussion(Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and EIR) The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEIR. The change to the Right of Way(ROW)of Arnold Road and leaving the channel open does not have a substantial adverse impact on cultural resources and,with the changes proposed as part of the channel restoration,will actually be an enhancement to the existing channel condition. The potential sale of open space for mitigation purposes will not have impacts to cultural resources that were not already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR because no development is proposed to take place on the subject property. Lastly,the location and configuration of the power lines along Scarlett Drive does not have any impacts related to cultural resources. Overall, the Dublin Crossing Project remains intact with minor modifications resulting from the Proposed Project. The location of development remains the same,functionality of the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased,the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,and the number of students expected to be served by the future school site has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts on cultural resources beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing El R,and therefore no new impacts would result. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other X substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? b) Strong seismic ground shaking? X c) Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? X d) Landslides? X e) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X f) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project,and X potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? g) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life X or property? h) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems X where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. Discussion(Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and EIR) Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant - No New Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEIR. The change to the Right of Way(ROW)of Arnold Road and leaving the channel open does not have a substantial adverse impact on geology and soils and,with the changes proposed as part of the channel restoration,will actually be an enhancement to the existing channel condition. The potential sale of open space for mitigation purposes will not have impacts to geology and soils that were not already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR because no development is proposed to take place on the subject property. Lastly,the location and configuration of the power lines along Scarlett Drive does not have any impacts related to geology and soils. Overall,the Dublin Crossing Project remains intact with minor modifications resulting from the Proposed Project. The location of development remains the same,functionality of the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased,the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased, and the number of students expected to be served by the future school site has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts on geology and soils beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result. 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or indirectly,that may have a significant impact on the X environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan,policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse X gases? Discussion(Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and EIR) The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEI R. The change to the Right of Way(ROW)of Arnold Road and leaving the channel open does not have a substantial adverse impact on greenhouse gas emissions and,with the changes proposed as part of the channel restoration,will actually be an enhancement to the existing channel condition. The potential sale of open space for mitigation purposes will not have impacts to greenhouse gas emissions that were not already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR because no development is proposed to take place on the subject property. The location and configuration of the power lines along Scarlett Drive does not have any impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions. Overall,the Dublin Crossing Project remains intact with minor modifications resulting from the Proposed Project. The location of development remains the same,functionality of the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased,the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,and the number of students expected to be served by the future school site has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous X materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions X involving the release of hazardous materials into the Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant No New Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste within''/,mile of an X existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code X Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?(V.13) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a X safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working X in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation X plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands X are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion(Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and EIR) The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEIR. The change to the Right of Way(ROW)of Arnold Road and leaving the channel open does not have a substantial adverse impact on hazards and hazardous materials and,with the changes proposed as part of the channel restoration,will actually be an enhancement to the existing channel condition. The potential sale of open space for mitigation purposes will not have impacts to hazards and hazardous materials that were not already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR because no development is proposed to take place on the subject property. Lastly,the location and configuration of the power lines along Scarlett Drive does not have any impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. Overall,the Dublin Crossing Project remains intact with minor modifications resulting from the Proposed Project. The location of development remains the same,functionality of the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased,the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,and the number of students expected to be served by the future school site has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there X would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant No New Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts local ground water table level(for example,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a X stream or river,in a manner,which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of X surface runoff in a manner,which would result in flooding on- or off-site. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems X or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g) Place housing within a loo-year flood-hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate X Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood-hazard area structures,which X would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of X the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? X Discussion(Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and EIR) All future construction will need to comply with the requirements of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Control Board as well as all City of Dublin stormwater treatment and water quality requirements. The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEIR. The change to the Right of Way(ROW)of Arnold Road and leaving the channel open does not have a substantial adverse impact on hydrology and water quality and,with the changes proposed as part of the channel restoration,will actually be an enhancement to the existing channel condition. The potential sale of open space for mitigation purposes will not have impacts to hydrology and water quality that were not already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR because no development is proposed to take place on the subject property. Lastly,the location and configuration of the power lines along Scarlett Drive does not have any impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Overall,the Dublin Crossing Project remains intact with minor modifications resulting from the Proposed Project. The location of development remains the same,functionality of the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased,the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,and the number of students expected to be served by the future school site has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts related to hydrology and water quality beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant No New Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): to. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan,local coastal X program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or X Natural Community Conservation Plan? Discussion The Proposed Project is in conformance with the General Plan,the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and the site zoning. There are no adopted Habitat Conservation or Natural Community Conservation Plans in the City of Dublin. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts related to land use and planning beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result. ti. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the X state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, X specific plan,or other land use plan? Discussion There are no known mineral resources within the City of Dublin or designated in the General Plan or other land use plan, and therefore there would be no impact. 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise X ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground X borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) Substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the X project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the X project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people X residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant No New Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area X to excessive noise levels? Discussion(Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and EIR) The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEIR. The change to the Right of Way(ROW)of Arnold Road and leaving the channel open does not have a substantial adverse impact on noise. The potential sale of open space for mitigation purposes will not have impacts to noise that were not already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR because no development is proposed to take place on the subject property. Lastly,the location and configuration of the power lines along Scarlett Drive does not have any impacts related to noise. Overall,the Dublin Crossing Project remains intact with minor modifications resulting from the Proposed Project. The location of development remains the same, functionality of the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased, the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,and the number of students expected to be served by the future school site has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts related to noise beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result. 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly(for example,by proposing new homes and X businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing X elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion(Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and EIR) The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEIR. Overall,the Dublin Crossing Project remains intact with minor modifications resulting from the Proposed Project. The location of development remains the same,functionality of the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased,the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,and the number of students expected to be served by the future school site has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts related to population and housing beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physical altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant No New Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Other public facilities? X Discussion(Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and EIR) The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEIR. The change to the Right of Way(ROW)of Arnold Road and leaving the channel open does not have a substantial adverse impact on public services. The potential sale of open space for mitigation purposes will not have impacts to public services that were not already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR because no development is proposed to take place on the subject property. Lastly,the location and configuration of the power lines along Scarlett Drive does not have any impacts related to public services. Overall,the Dublin Crossing Project remains intact with minor modifications resulting from the Proposed Project. The location of development remains the same,functionality of the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased,the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,and the number of students expected to be served by the future school site has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts related to public services beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result. 15. RECREATION. Would the project a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical X deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an X adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion(Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and EIR) The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEI R. The change to the Right of Way(ROW)of Arnold Road and leaving the channel open does not have a substantial adverse impact on parks or recreational facilities. The potential sale of open space for mitigation purposes will not have impacts to parks or recreational facilities that were not already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR because no development is proposed to take place on the subject property. Lastly,the location and configuration of the power lines along Scarlett Drive does not have any impacts related to parks or recreational facilities. Overall,the Dublin Crossing Project remains intact with minor modifications resulting from the Proposed Project. The location of development remains the same,functionality of the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased,the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,and the number of students expected to be served by the future school site has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts related to recreation beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result. i6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project a) Conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance,or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of X the circulation system,taking into account all modes of Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant No New Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections,streets,highways and freeways,pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including,but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures,or other standards established by X the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in X substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(for example,sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or X incompatible uses(for example,farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X f) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs supporting regarding public transit,bicycle,or pedestrian facilities,or X otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Discussion(Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and EIR,Exhibit A-3 to this Initial Study) The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEIR. The change to the Right of Way(ROW)of Arnold Road does not have a material impact on the functionality of the circulation system as previously designed,as explained in Attachment 3 to this Initial Study(Memorandum prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants). The potential sale of open space for mitigation purposes will not have impacts to traffic/transportation that were not already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR because no development is proposed to take place on the subject property. Lastly,the location and configuration of the power lines along Scarlett Drive does not have any impacts related to traffic or transportation facilities in that there will be no impact to Scarlett Drive or Dublin Blvd.that was not already addressed in the Dublin Crossing FEIR. Overall,the Dublin Crossing Project remains intact with minor modifications resulting from the Proposed Project. The location of development remains the same,functionality of the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased,the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,and the number of students expected to be served by the future school site has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts related to traffic/transportation beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing X facilities,the construction or which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water X Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact J ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant No New Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or X expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider,which serves or may serve the project that it has X adequate capacity to serve the project projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations X related to solid waste? Discussion(Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and EIR) The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEI R. The change to the Right of Way(ROW)of Arnold Road and leaving the channel open does not have a substantial adverse impact on utilities or service systems. The potential sale of open space for mitigation purposes will not have impacts to utilities or service systems that were not already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR because no development is proposed to take place on the subject property. Lastly,the location and configuration of the power lines along Scarlett Drive does not have any impacts related to utilities or service systems because the same transmission and distribution facilities will remain in service in slightly different configurations. Overall,the Dublin Crossing Project remains intact with minor modifications resulting from the Proposed Project. The location of development remains the same,functionality of the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased,the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased, and the number of students expected to be served by the future school site has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts related to utilities and service systems beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result. 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project: a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal X community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed X in connection with the effects of the past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects.) ' Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant No New Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts c) Have environmental effects,which will cause substantial x adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? Discussion(Sources: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and EIR) The Proposed Project does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed in the Dublin Crossing FEI R. The change to the Right of Way(ROW)of Arnold Road and leaving the channel open does not have substantial adverse environmental impacts. Nor will the potential sale of open space for mitigation purposes because no development is proposed to take place on the subject property. Lastly,the location and configuration of the power lines along Scarlett Drive will not have substantial adverse environmental impacts— either individually or cumulatively. Overall,the Dublin Crossing Project remains intact with minor modifications resulting from the Proposed Project. The location of development remains the same,functionality of the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased,the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,and the number of students expected to be served by the future school site has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result,no additional environmental degradation would take place,no new cumulatively considerable impacts would be caused,and no new environmental effects not already studied would be present. Exhibits: Exhibit A-1: Perspectives at Horizon Parkway, dated December 2015 and prepared by Gates and Associates. An illustrative rendering of the Arnold Road/Horizon Parkway intersection future improvements and landscaping with the Arnold Road channel remaining open). Exhibit A-2: Arnold Canal Illustrative, dated December 2015 and prepared by Gates and Associates. An exhibit that illustrates the details of future improvements along Arnold Road including street right of way width, channel location and landscaping,and size/location of future bicycle lanes,pedestrian sidewalks, and trails. Exhibit A-3: Technical Memorandum on the Results of the Review of Dublin Crossing Road Changes, dated December 23, 2015 and prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants. EXHIBIT B STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council of the City of Dublin makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council has balanced the benefits of the 2013 Dublin Crossing Specific Plan project (Project) to the City of Dublin against the significant adverse impacts identified in the Environmental Impact Report(EIR)that cannot be reduced to less than significant through feasible mitigations or alternatives. Pursuant to Section 15093, the City Council determined that the benefits of the Project outweighed the adverse impacts as part of its resolution certifying the EIR and adopting environmental findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations on November 5, 2013 (via Resolution 186-13). The City Council is now considering the environmental impacts of the project as revised by the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Substantial Conformance Determination, Finding of Compliance with the Conditions of Approval for VTM 8150, and Amendment No. 2 to the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement in reaching its decision to approve the Revised Project. A CEQA Addendum, dated January 5, 2016 has been prepared that documents that there are no new or substantially more severe significant impacts resulting from the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement Amendment No. 2 Project (2016)— Revised Project—as compared to the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Project (2013)— Original Project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognized that implementation of both the Original Project and the Revised Project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified in the EIR. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent the identified significant adverse impacts for the Project are not reduced to acceptable levels through feasible mitigation or alternatives, there are specific economic, social, land use and other considerations that support approval of the Revised Project. 2. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. The following significant unavoidable air quality and traffic impacts are associated with both the Original Project and the Revised Project, as identified in the EIR. Short-term Construction Air Quality—The proposed project would result in future short- term air quality impacts associated with construction activities, including grading, operation of equipment, and demolition of existing structures within the project area. The BAAQMD requires the construction mitigation measures to be implemented at all construction sites, regardless of size. However, as the proposed project would facilitate future development and generate construction emissions that could potentially exceed BAAQMD thresholds, a significant unavoidable impact would occur. (Impact 3.2-1.) Long-term Operational Air Quality—The total unmitigated operational emissions associated with buildout of the proposed project would exceed the BAAQMD thresholds 1 for ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. With application of the measures/design features regarding area and mobile source emissions within the Specific Plan, operational emissions would still exceed the thresholds for ROG, NOx, and PM10. The proposed project could also result in exposure of sensitive land use in excess of applicable Toxic Air Contaminant standards, even with mitigation. Therefore, these would be considered significant and unavoidable impacts. (Impacts 3.2-3, 3.2-5.) Lona-term Operational Impacts to Freeway Ramps—The proposed project would result in a significant impact to the following freeway ramps: Southbound Hacienda Drive to I- 580 Eastbound On-ramp under project and cumulative conditions and Southbound Tassajara Road to 1-580 Westbound On-ramp under cumulative conditions. Mitigation measures 3.12-7 would require modification of the ramp metering rates so that more vehicles could access the freeway. However, the freeway ramps are operated by Caltrans, which sets metering rates based on overall operations in the freeway corridor. As the cities surrounding the 1-580 corridor continue to build out and additional parallel east/west connectors such as the Stoneridge Drive and Dublin Boulevard extensions are completed, it is likely that the ramp meter rates would change over time to accommodate the demand on both the freeway ramps and freeway segments. Because the future metering rates cannot be predicted with certainty, the project impacts to freeway ramps would be considered a significant and unavoidable impact. (Impact 3.12- 7.) 3. Overriding Considerations. The City Council has carefully considered each impact in reaching its decision to approve the Revised Project. The City Council now balances those unavoidable impacts against its benefits, and hereby determines that the unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the Revised Project as further set forth below. Any one of these benefits is sufficient to justify approval of the Revised Project. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the record as a whole. The Revised Project will continue to facilitate development of an infill area, fully served by public utilities, and convenient to major arterials, services, BART and public transit. The Revised Project includes medium and medium-high density residential and commercial uses to make more efficient use of its infill location and proximity to transit facilities. The Revised Project will continue to allow the City to assist the School District in acquiring a site for a school in the project area to serve the community. The Revised Project continues to includes design standards for residential and commercial uses as well as streetscapes that will result in an attractive and vibrant community. The Revised Project emphasizes higher density, compact development patterns appropriate to its location near the BART station and the Iron Horse Trail where a diverse mix of uses would be readily accessible through alternative transport modes. It also emphasizes pedestrian level development where walking and bicycling would be safe, feasible alternatives to automobile trips within the Project area and to or from 2 nearby neighborhoods, transit and commercial uses. Development standards and design guidelines provide measures for ensuring attractive, visually appealing development of private projects and public spaces. The Revised Project continues to include a significant residential component that will assist the City in meeting its Housing Element RHNA goals. The potential housing will be at densities complementary to existing residential and non-residential uses in the area. The Project will also provide funding for future construction and maintenance of a 30-acre community park and 5-acre joint-use neighborhood park. This amount of parkland and funding exceeds what the Project would otherwise be required to provide. The Project provides an elementary school site. In addition, the developers will contribute$23.5 million in an accelerated timeframe to the City for use on municipal capital projects and other benefits as part of the Development Agreement relating to the Project. The Revised Project includes the enhancement of the channel along Arnold Road to provide a naturalized look to that edge of the community in addition to wildlife habitat value that was not originally planned to be included. The Project includes the potential for up to 200,000 square feet of revenue producing commercial development that will create new jobs and sales and property taxes. The Project is also expected to have a fiscally beneficial impact on the City's financial and services resources, estimated by the City's financial consultant to be a net benefit of over$100,000 annually upon full build out. Future development of the site will provide construction employment and permanent employment opportunities for Dublin residents. The Project provides an effective means to implement the City's objectives for the area, as described in the Specific Plan and EIR. For all of the above reasons, the benefits of the Revised Project outweigh its significant unavoidable/air quality and traffic impacts. 2438727.1 3